JUDGMENT : The petitioners were opposite-parties in Criminal Misc. (D.V) Case No.04 of 2012 which was instituted on a petition filed by O.P. No.2 under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. They were directed to pay Rs.1200/-per month to both O.P. No.2 and her daughter Sanjana Kumari each, besides litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. 2. The judgment dated 19.12.2015 in Criminal Misc. (D.V) Case No.04 of 2012 was challenged by them in Criminal Appeal No.02 of 2016 which has been dismissed vide judgment dated 08.04.2016. 3. In the proceeding of Criminal Misc. (D.V) Case No.04, the opposite-party no.2 (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) has examined four witnesses; she has examined herself as P.W.1. She has deposed in the court that she was married to Hiralal Mandal about 12 years back and at the time of marriage gold and silver ornaments, household articles and Rs.1 lac in cash were given by her parents. Her husband was running a grossery shop and he had purchased an auto-rikshaw. Unfortunately, in the year 2010 her husband died and thereafter the opposite-parties started neglecting her. She has made various allegations of harassment and torture against them. On 24.12.2011 at about 5 p.m she was finally ousted by the opposite-parties from her matrimonial home. She has stated about a Panchayati convened on 30.07.2009 in which it was decided that 1/4th share of fixed deposit amount of Rs.50,000/-shall be deposited in the name of the applicant and her daughter and 1/4th share in the landed properties shall be given to her. She has further stated that it was also decided that Rs.1200/-per month shall be given by the opposite-parties to her for her maintenance. She has examined her father, uncle and one independent witness in support of her claim for maintenance. These witnesses have stated about her harassment and torture at the hands of the opposite-parties, Panchayati on 29.09.2009 and her ouster from her matrimonial home. The petitioners herein who were the opposite-parties have also examined four witnesses. O.P. No.1 has examined himself as D.W.1. The witnesses examined by the opposite-parties have stated about deposit of Rs.50,000/-by Kashi Nath Mandal in Sahara India and a memorandum of partition. 4. The petitioners herein who were the opposite-parties have also examined four witnesses. O.P. No.1 has examined himself as D.W.1. The witnesses examined by the opposite-parties have stated about deposit of Rs.50,000/-by Kashi Nath Mandal in Sahara India and a memorandum of partition. 4. On the basis of the materials laid before him, the learned Magistrate has held as under: “From the evidence adduced of the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner and her one daughter were residing at her parent's house namely Nakul Mandal since last few years and it is also brought on record that the respondent Sitaram Mandal had running the cycle shop as we as plying auto and enjoying other landed properties for which I find and hold that and Rs.1,200/-(one thousand two hundred) only each per month as maintenance would serve the purpose and considering this fact the relief claimed U/s-20 of D.V Act is justified and hence the respondents 1, 2 & 3 is hereby directed to pay of Rs.1,200/- per month each to the petitioner Pinki Devi and Rs.1,200/-per month to minor daughter namely Sanjana Kumari by way of maintenance and this order cum into force from the date of passing of this order i.e from today.” 5. Criminal Appeal No .02 of 2016 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the appellate court on the following findings: “From perusal of record and oral evidence adduced in this case, I find that this case has been filed by the Pinki Devi Widow of Late Hiralal Mandal against Sitaram Mandal and others U/Sec 12 of the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on 02.02.2012, thereafter written statement has been filed by the O.Ps on 16.06.2012 and after appearance of O.P. trial was commenced. From perusal of oral evidence, I find that Pinki Devi who examined in this case as Applicant witness no.01 has deposed that her father in law was maintained her family expenses and after death of her husband O.Ps have denied to give her family expenses. She has also deposed that shop of her husband and Tempo were taken by her Bhaisur and she also demanded house for her residing. In her cross-examination she had denied that partition took place between them in the life time of her father in law. A.W.04 Madhusudan Mandal has deposed in his examination in chief that all the four brothers were living jointly. In her cross-examination she had denied that partition took place between them in the life time of her father in law. A.W.04 Madhusudan Mandal has deposed in his examination in chief that all the four brothers were living jointly. On the other hand O.Ps have adduced 04 witnesses, in which O.P.W.01 Sitaram Mandal has deposed that they are living separate from each others and ration card and voter list are also separate and his father has partitioned the land in his life time. He also filed xerox copy voter list, paper of vehicle and sale deed. But in his cross-examination he has deposed that we have 07 acre of ancestral land. He has also deposed that family partition was done but in which year, he is unable to say. O.P.W.02 has deposed that Sitaram Mandal resided at Madhupur after purchasing land and he also deposed in her cross-examination at para 07 that partition was not done in his presence. O.P.W.03 has deposed that Pinki Devi resided in the house of Sitaram Mandal, at present the said house is closed. He has also deposed that Kashi Nath retired from service in the year 2009. O.P.W.04 Manoj Kumar Rout has not deposed any thing regard the fact of this case and he has simply proved and marked Ext. B and C. From perusal of the document filed by the O.Ps I find that no any document has been produced by them to show that family partitioned was done between them. A.W.01 has denied that partition took place between them in the life time of her father in law. If the partition was done between the parties, a document of family partition must be produced by the O.Ps. In my opinion there is no document of family partition has been brought before this court or before the court below which shows that partition was not done between the family of O.Ps and applicant. Since the parties are joint so petitioners are liable to pay maintenance of Rs.1200/-per month to Pinki Kumari and Rs.1200/-per month to her daughter namely Sanjana Kumari and he also pay Rs.3000/-as a litigation cost as directed by the court below. So, there is no need to interfere in the judgment passed by the court below.” 6. Since the parties are joint so petitioners are liable to pay maintenance of Rs.1200/-per month to Pinki Kumari and Rs.1200/-per month to her daughter namely Sanjana Kumari and he also pay Rs.3000/-as a litigation cost as directed by the court below. So, there is no need to interfere in the judgment passed by the court below.” 6. Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the expression “aggrieved person” has been defined to mean any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence. Section 2(f) defines “domestic relationship” to mean a relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through the relationship in the nature of marriage. Marriage of the applicant with Hiralal Mandal who was brother of the opposite-parties is not denied. After the death of her husband the applicant has lived in a shared household is also not denied. The opposite-parties have alleged that one room in the shared household in which the applicant was living after the death of her husband is in her possession and she has put the house under lock. 7. On family partition, from the evidence laid by the opposite-parties it would appear that the opposite party no.1 during his cross-examination has said that he does not remember when family partition was affected. P.W.2 has stated that he was not present when the family partition was done and P.W.4 has not at all stated about the family partition. The alleged document of family partition is an affidavit sworn by Kashi Nath Mandal who is father of the opposite-party nos.1 to 3 and it needs to be recorded that this has been signed by Kashi Nath Mandal and Hiralal Mandal only. This affidavit records properties and liability of Sitaram Mandal and by no stretch of imagination the affidavit dated 23.08.2005 can be construed as a memorandum of family partition. On the basis of the evidences led by the parties, two courts have concurrently held that the appellants are entitled for an order under section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In “Krishna Bhattacharjee Vs. On the basis of the evidences led by the parties, two courts have concurrently held that the appellants are entitled for an order under section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In “Krishna Bhattacharjee Vs. Sarathi Choudhury & Anr.” reported in (2016) 2 SCC 705 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 3. “Regard being had to the nature of the legislation, a more sensitive approach is expected from the courts whereunder 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 apposite 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 scrutinise 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 bound 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.” 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions and keeping in mind limitations of the revisional jurisdiction [refer “Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.” reported in (1987) 1 SCC 288], I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and, accordingly, Cr. Rev. No.628 of 2016 is dismissed.