Judgment Mr. Hari Pal Verma, J.:-Petitioner--Kavita (daughter-in-law) has filed the presentrevision petition impugning the order dated 17.12.2018 passed byAdditional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby the appeal filed by therespondent (father-in-law) against order dated 06.01.2018 passed byJudicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal in an application under Section 12 ofthe Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short,”the Act”) was allowed and the Appellate Court, while setting aside theorder dated 06.01.2018, has directed the trial Court to pass a fresh order onthe application, so filed by the petitioner for interim relief. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner filed an application titled asKavita Vervs Vishnu & others under Section 12 of the Act against herhusband and in-laws for grant of interim maintenance on the averments thatmarriage of the petitioner (Kavita) and Vishnu was solemnised on17.06.2011 and a daughter Bhumika was born to them out of this wedlock.However, ever since the marriage of the petitioner, she was harassed andsubjected to domestic violence by the accused. Demand of dowry in theshape of cash amount of Rs.1,51,000/- and a car was raised. In 2011, thepetitioner was ousted from her matrimonial home, after giving severebeatings to her and since then, she is living at her parental house and she isnot able to maintain herself and her daughter. Her husband Vishnu wasworking with JP Group, Noida and is also having 5 acres of agriculturalland in Haryana, whereas the other respondents, as arrayed in theapplication, were also having income of more than Rs.20,000/- per monthfrom the business of selling milk. However, Vishnu (husband of thepetitioner) was absconding from his house in order to avoid payment ofmaintenance and further litigations and he has been declared as proclaimedoffender. 3. The trial Court after hearing the parties and considering thefact that husband of the petitioner, who was arrayed as respondent no.1 inthe application so filed by the petitioner for grant of interim maintenance,was reportedly absconding and has been declared as proclaimed offender, has taken recourse to Section 2(q) of the Act and directed respondent no.2therein, who is none else but father-in-law of the petitioner, to paymaintenance @ Rs.2,000/- from the date of filing of the application videorder dated 06.01.2018. 4. The respondent (father-in-law) filed appeal against the orderdated 06.01.2018 passed by the trial Court before Additional SessionsJudge, Palwal. 4. The respondent (father-in-law) filed appeal against the orderdated 06.01.2018 passed by the trial Court before Additional SessionsJudge, Palwal. The Appellate Court while considering the averments madein paragraph 6 of the application, allowed the appeal and set aside the orderdated 06.01.2018 passed by the trial Court, with a further direction to passa fresh order on the application for grant of interim relief, vide impugnedorder dated 17.12.2018. 5. Aggrieved from the order dated 17.12.2018, the petitioner hasfiled the present revision petition. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Appellate Courthas committed a grave legal error while allowing the appeal filed by therespondent (father-in-law), setting aside a well reasoned order dated06.01.2018 passed by the trial Court. Since the respondent and his familymembers had made such like circumstances, the petitioner was left with noother option except to live separately from them. There are justifiablereasons for her to stay separately from them. It is the moral as well as legalobligation of the respondent to provide monetary assistance to thepetitioner, being her father-in-law. The Appellate Court has notappreciated the material fact that son of the respondent got married to thepetitioner and therefore, she being an ‘aggrieved person’, as defined underSection 2(a) of the Act, is entitled for maintenance. Section 2(q) has clearlydefined the word “respondent”, which means that ‘respondent is any adultmale person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with theaggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought anyrelief under this Act’. Thus, any adult male person is covered under thedefinition of ‘respondent’ and the father-in-law of the petitioner being‘respondent’ is liable to pay the maintenance to the petitioner, who is livingseparately. The husband of the petitioner is absconding only to avoid hisliability to pay maintenance to the petitioner and also to avoid payment ofother litigation expenses and thereby, he has been declared as proclaimedoffender by the Court. The entire property of her husband, which is about 5acres of cultivable agricultural land, apart from other income from sellingof milk etc., which is joint with the respondent, the respondent is bound topay the maintenance. The respondent is otherwise an able bodied personwhereas the petitioner is not able to maintain herself as well as herdaughter and therefore, she is entitled for maintenance. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. The respondent is otherwise an able bodied personwhereas the petitioner is not able to maintain herself as well as herdaughter and therefore, she is entitled for maintenance. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. The record reveals that the petitioner had filed an applicationunder Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act impleading her husbandVishnu as well as other family members as respondents-accused, whichincluded the respondent Jagdish, father-in-law, Kamlesh, mother-in-law,Gopal, brother-in-law and Tula Ram, grandfather-in-law of the petitioner-complainant. She was married with Vishnu on 17.06.2011 and a daughterwas born to them out of this wedlock. Learned Magistrate has fastened theliability upon the respondent (father-in-law) for the reason that husband ofthe petitioner had absconded and was declared as proclaimed offender bythe concerned Court. The other family members have been denied anyliability specifically. However, merely because the petitioner was marriedto Vishnu, the respondent who is father-in-law, cannot be ipso facto heldliable to pay maintenance, unless he is in domestic relationship with thepetitioner and has shared household. So long as her husband is alive, noliability towards maintenance allowance can be fixed on the father-in-law.Reference may be made to judgments of Hon’ble the Apex Court in thecases of S.R. Batra and another v. Smt. Taruna Batra, 2007 (3) SCC 169 and Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and others, 2008 (3) SCC 649 . In Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel (supra), the Apex Courthas held as under:- “21. Maintenance of a marriage wife, during subsistence of marriage, is on the husband. It is a personal obligation. The obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law arises only when the husband had died. Such an obligation can also be met from the properties of which the husband is a co-sharer and not otherwise. For invoking the said provision, the husband must have a share in the property. The property in the name of the mother-in-law can neither be a subject matter of attachment nor during the life time of the husband, his personal liability to maintain his wife can be directed to be enforced against such property.” 9. Further, nothing has come on record that the petitioner hadshared the household with the respondent, as defined under Section 2(s) ofthe Act. Further, nothing has come on record that the petitioner hadshared the household with the respondent, as defined under Section 2(s) ofthe Act. Merely because the respondent is father-in-law of the petitionerand her husband had absconded, as he has been declared as proclaimedoffender, does not mean that the respondent can be held liable to paymaintenance, unless there is material to show that the respondent hasshared household with the petitioner, as defined under Section 2(s) of theAct. Moreover, the Appellate Court has only remanded the case back tothe trial Court, so as to pass a fresh order on the application so filed by thepetitioner for interim relief, this Court finds that there is no illegality in theorder passed by the Appellate Court. 10. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.