JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this petition is to impugned order dated 24th July, 2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 5, Nagpur, whereby appeal preferred by respondent against the order passed by learned trial Court granting monetary reliefs under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2005”) to petitioner of Rs.2000/- per month and to her sons Rs.1000/- each, respectively, and also granting compensation of Rs.5000/- under Section 22 of the Act of 2005, was partly allowed thereby rejecting amount of maintenance granted to petitioner – wife, and confirming order of maintenance granted to her children, who were original applicant nos.2 and 3. It is the case of petitioner that the learned Appellate Court did not consider evidence on record in its proper perspective and wrongly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for maintenance granted by the learned trial Court. It is contended that in fact evidence of petitioner remained unconverted and in fact respondent did not bring on record any evidence before the learned trial Court establishing that he was not in any manner liable for payment of maintenance. By referring to the evidence of petitioner, it is pointed out as to how the learned Appellate Court failed to hold that respondent has committed domestic violence, and as to why petitioner was constrained to live separately without any monitory support and therefore, contended that impugned order is 2. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the proceedings initiated against him are false and has come out with the specific case that when petitioner’s father was working in the government service at Gadchiroli, he performed second marriage and thereafter was not providing sufficient monitory relief to petitioner’s mother, brother or other family members and therefore, petitioner was behind the respondent to provide money to her mother and other family members which respondent in spite of complying to some effect was finding it difficult to provide sufficient amount of money due to his own financial constraints and on that count petitioner was inviting quarrels. Another ground put forth by respondent is that mother of petitioner started construction of house at Ramtek for which purpose petitioner was pressing respondent to provide Rs.2,00,000/- on obtaining loan, however, since it was not possible for the respondent to satisfy such demand, petitioner on her own left the company of respondent and started residing at Ramtek where respondent visited and requested her to join back his company, however, she refused for the same. Thus, it is the case of respondent that at no point of time he had ill-treated petitioner and submitted that petition be dismissed. 3. In view of submissions advanced as aforesaid, on perusal of facts it is noted that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 1st June, 1998 at the native place of respondent and thereafter they resided together at Hingoli till petitioner left the company of respondent and went to Ramtek in September, 2009. Thereafter, in December, 2009 respondent went to Ramtek to bring petitioner back and had agreed not to provide any ill-treated when petitioner accompanied him and after residing for 10 to 12 days left the company of respondent in the month of February, 2010 along with her children and since then is residing with her parents. It is the case of petitioner that she has no source of income while respondent is working as a teacher earning Rs.20,000/per month. 4. In the background of facts as above, before considering other evidence, it is necessary to consider the scope of “domestic violence”, as has been set out under the Act of 2005 wherein wider meaning is given to domestic violence and therefore it covers various acts including physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse, economic abuse and also include harm and injuries as well as the act endangering to health, safety, life, limb or well being to the aggrieved person. Said term also covers act related to meeting of unlawful demand for dowry or other property or valuable security. Physical abuse includes bodily pain, harm or danger to life, limb or health etc. while verbal and emotional abuse includes insults, ridicule, humiliation and economic abuse includes deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom. Needless to say that the aggrieved person includes the wife. 5. Physical abuse includes bodily pain, harm or danger to life, limb or health etc. while verbal and emotional abuse includes insults, ridicule, humiliation and economic abuse includes deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom. Needless to say that the aggrieved person includes the wife. 5. Having regard to the object of the Act of 2005 as aforesaid, together with the definition of ‘Domestic Violence’, the case of petitioner appears to be of domestic violence provided to her by respondent by way of physical abuse, economic abuse and monetary harassment caused to her. In the light of case of petitioner as aforesaid, therefore, on perusal of evidence of petitioner, it appears that the learned appellate Court, did not find it necessary to consider evidence of petitioner about ill-treatment provided to her by respondent after marriage, finding that petitioner, admittedly, has not pleaded said fact in the petition. However, it is material to note that apart from said type of evidence, learned Appellate court failed to discuss other evidence of petitioner which, in fact, is found duly considered by the learned trial Court when petitioner has deposed that respondent was initiating quarrels on trifle issues and was also suspecting the character of petitioner and for that reason was not allowing her to talk to neighbours. Said evidence of petitioner is found corroborated with the evidence of her mother who has stated that respondent on suspecting petitioner's character, was providing ill-treatment to her and had also assaulted her. 6. Though learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that marriage between the parties took place in the year 1998 while petitioner left her matrimonial home in 2009 and in between, there was no complaint made by her to any authorities which fact by itself establish that there was no kind of ill-treatment or harassment provided to her, said submissions to some extent can be considered in favour of respondent in view of the fact that mother of petitioner has, in her cross-examination admitted that petitioner used to visit her parental home during family functions and festivals but at no point of time made any complaint in the Police Station. It is, therefore, urged on behalf of respondent that after having led happy married life for a long period of 12 years, and having two school going children, there can be no substance in the case of wife that she is provided ill-treatment at the hands of husband. However, on considering above submissions with the evidence of respondent, it is material to note that he had not brought on record any evidence to establish that as per monetary demand of petitioner, he had satisfied the same and therefore, case of respondent about petitioner’s requesting him to provide monetary assistance to her mother, brothers and their family members and also for obtaining loan for construction of house to be initiated by her mother does not stand for any reason. Though respondent by examining his witness, the land lord had made an attempt to bring on record fact of respondent being a person having good relations with his neighborhood and has placed on record certificate issued by the Headmaster, Z.P. Primary School. Distt.Hingoli establishing that in his service tenure there is no case pending against him, these aspects do not establish that respondent's attitude towards petitioner and his children is also cordial. Moreover, respondent has not examined any independent witness to establish that his relations with petitioner were cordial. 7. From the evidence as discussed above, thus there appears much substance when it is submitted on behalf of petitioner that she is entitled for maintenance as she is compelled to live separately from respondent since February, 2010, as neglected by respondent, who has failed to maintain her. 8. In the circumstances and from the facts as aforesaid, as it is established by petitioner that she is subjected to domestic violence as contemplated under the Act of 2005 and she is entitled for monetary reliefs under Section 20 of the said Act. For that purpose petitioner has claimed Rs.8000/- contending that respondent is earning Rs.20,000/- per month and has placed on record his Salary Certificate at Exh.18. Admittedly, respondent has not disputed fact that, both the children are residing with petitioner nor had come out with the case that petitioner has independent source of income. From the record it reveals that after permissible deductions respondent is paid Rs.13,703/- per month and learned trial Court had granted Rs.2000/- per month for petitioner and Rs.1000/per month for each of the children as monetary reliefs. From the record it reveals that after permissible deductions respondent is paid Rs.13,703/- per month and learned trial Court had granted Rs.2000/- per month for petitioner and Rs.1000/per month for each of the children as monetary reliefs. In that view of the matter, the learned trial Court, in fact, appears to have rightly considered the evidence and awarded monetary reliefs to petitioner as aforesaid, however, the learned Appellate Court while rejecting the claim of petitioner appears to have weighed with the fact of second marriage performed, by father of petitioner since it is noted in the impugned judgment that the most important fact which non-applicant (respondent) has brought on record is that the father of applicant no.1 (petitioner)/wife got married with another woman and the second wife had given birth to a child who is named as Umang and same is held to be the cause for destruction of family life of the parties. The view taken by the learned Appellate Court as such does not stand for any reason, as marriage of petitioner’s father can be no ground for denying monetary reliefs to her. In the facts involved in the petition, reference can usefully be made to the case of Krishna Bhattacharjee vs. Sarathi Choudhary and anr., reported in (2016) 2 SCC 705 where in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed thus - “That the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been legislated, as its Preamble would reflect, to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The 2005 Act is a detailed Act. The dictionary Clause of the 2005 Act, which we shall advert to slightly at a larger stage, as in a broader spectrum. The definition of “domestic violence” covers a range of violence which takes within its sweep “economic abuse” and the words “economic abuse”, as the provision would show, has many a facet. 3. The dictionary Clause of the 2005 Act, which we shall advert to slightly at a larger stage, as in a broader spectrum. The definition of “domestic violence” covers a range of violence which takes within its sweep “economic abuse” and the words “economic abuse”, as the provision would show, has many a facet. 3. Regard being had to the nature of the legislation, a more sensitive approach is expected from the courts where under the 2005 Act no relief can be granted, it should never be conceived of but, before throwing a petition at the threshold on the ground of maintainability, there has to be an opposite discussion and thorough deliberation on the issues raised. It should be borne in mind that helpless and hapless “aggrieved person” under the 2005 Act approaches the court under the compelling circumstances. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize the facts from all angles whether a plea advanced by the respondent to nullify the grievance of the aggrieved person is really legally sound and correct. The principle “justice to the cause is equivalent to the salt of ocean” should be kept in mind. The court of law is found to uphold the truth which sparkles when justice is done. Before throwing a petition at the threshold, it is obligatory to see that the person aggrieved under such a legislation is not faced with a situation of non-adjudication, for the 2005 Act as we have stated is a beneficial as well as assertively affirmative enactment for the realization of the constitutional rights of women and to ensure that they do not become victims of any kind of domestic violence.” 9. In the circumstances, petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge – 5 Nagpur dated 24th July, 2012 in Criminal Appeal No.103 of 2011 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.