JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present application, the applicants have requested to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 17.07.2022 passed by learned 2nd Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahod in Criminal Misc. Application No. 226 of 2009 as well as judgment and order dated 08.11.2022 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2012. 2. Brief facts of the present case are as under: 2.1 The marriage between the son of the applicant no.1 and the respondent no.2 was solemnized on 03.03.1989 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. Out of the said wedlock the respondent no. 2 gave a birth to two daughter who are respondent no.3 and 4 respectively. Thereafter, on 25.08.2002 the husband of the respondent no.2 was died due to Cancer. In the year 2009, because of some Business transaction the applicants herein have asked respondent no.2 herein to relinquish her right from the property and it was decided between both the parties to pay Rs.41 lakh as a share in the property. Out of Rs. 41 Lakhs , Rs. 20 lakhs was paid immediately and remaining Rs.21 lakhs was to be paid after the completing all the legal formalities. The respondent no.2 herein had signed on the documents and also accepted Rs. 20 lakhs as a part payment. 2.2 That, thereafter on 12.10.2009, respondent no.2 herein had preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 226 of 2009 before the court of learned 2" Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahod under the Domestic Violence Act alleging and pleading that her husband who was younger brother of applicant no.2 died as on 25.08.2002 due to Cancer disease and thereafter, she was residing in the said house with her daughters. But in the month of August 2009 the ill treatment was started in the mind of all the applicants to snatch away the rights of the applicants as husband of the respondent no.2 was also doing business along with applicant no.2 and his deceased father. Moreover, the property belongs to Desaivada and godown situated at Village Chhapari were belonged to Joint ownership of deceased husband of respondent no.2 along with applicant no.2. Thus, all the applicants have created bad atmosphere in the said house as the respondent no.2 would be constrained to leave the said house along with her two minor daughters. Moreover, the property belongs to Desaivada and godown situated at Village Chhapari were belonged to Joint ownership of deceased husband of respondent no.2 along with applicant no.2. Thus, all the applicants have created bad atmosphere in the said house as the respondent no.2 would be constrained to leave the said house along with her two minor daughters. They desired to obtain signature from the respondent no.2 upon the relinquish-deed of the property, but she declined and as a result of which, she was driven out from the said residential house badly. Thereafter, father of the respondent no.2 and other relatives of community gathered in the bad atmosphere and the applicants have prepared a document declaring that she is entitled to get Rs.41,00,000/-as per half portion of the two property and gave Rs. 20,00,000/- to the respondent no.2 and remaining Rs. 21,00,000/-has not been paid to respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 has mentioned that total property belongs to joint ownership were amounting for Rs. 5 to 6 crore, and therefore, she has claimed to be awarded Rs. 25,000/-per month to respondents no.2, 3 and 4 and also prayed to allow other benefits as per the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. The court has directed the relatives of her husband to pay an amount for Rs. 5000-/per month under the head of alternative accommodation for residence under Sec. 19(f) and also passed an order under provision of Sec.20(3) to pay an amount for Rs.12000/-of monthly compensation to respondents no.2 to 4 at the rate of Rs.4000/-each and directed to submit a copy of the IT returns and Accounts under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act. 2.3 That, applicants herein have preferred an appeal against the order dated 17.07.2012 before the learned Sessions Court being Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2012 and the respondents No.2 to 4 have also filed an appeal against the said order being Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2022, wherein after hearing both the parties, learned Sessions Court has partly allowed the Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2022 filed by the respondents No.2 to 4 and dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2022 by the present applicants and thus, being aggrieved by the said order dated 08.11.2012, applicants have preferred present revision application before this court. 3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 4. 3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 4. It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicants that at the time of passing the impugned orders dated 17.07.2012 and 08.11.2012, both the courts below have not considered the fact that the husband of the respondent no.2 herein was died on 25.08.2002 and thereafter, the respondent no. 2 herein has preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.226 of 2009 before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate under the Domestic Violence Act, in the year 2009. That, it is not in dispute that before 2009, there was no domestic violence was complained by respondent no.2 herein. That, both the parties have arrived at a conclusion that the Rs.41 lakhs was required to be given to respondent no.2 to 4 as a share in the property and in return to the same no. 2 to 4 will relinquish their right from the properties. Out Rs.41 lakhs , Rs. 20 lakhs is already to paid to her and subsequently reason best known to her, she has filed the application under the Domestic Violence Act. Both the courts below have not considered the above stated fact and not considered that after pocketing the huge amount of Rs. 20/- lakhs, the application under the Domestic Violence Act is filed. It was further submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that the respondent no. 2 has made false and baseless allegations against the applicants regarding Domestic Violence. That, actually the marriage was solemnized in the year 1989 and thereafter, she had given birth to respondent no.3 and 4 out of the wedlock. That, husband of the respondent no.2 was suffering from Cancer disease and on 25.08.2002, her husband was passed away. That, from 1989 to 2002 or after the death of her husband till 2009, she has never made complaint with regard to any kind of physical torture or any kind of Domestic Violence. That, both the courts below have not considered the fact that the suit for alienation is pending before the competent court and by way of this proceeding, she is creating pressure. That, both the courts below have failed in appreciating the facts that respondent no.2 has not produced a single evidence with regard to the income of the applicants. That, both the courts below have not considered the fact that the suit for alienation is pending before the competent court and by way of this proceeding, she is creating pressure. That, both the courts below have failed in appreciating the facts that respondent no.2 has not produced a single evidence with regard to the income of the applicants. Moreover, the court has directed to supply the IT return of firm which is beyond the jurisdiction and the the applicant no.1 is the mother in law, applicant no.2 is the brother in law and applicant no.3 is the sister in law have been held liable by both the courts below for providing maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act is illegal, perverse, arbitrary and against the principal of natural justice. Ultimately, it was submitted by learned advocate for the applicants to allow present application. 5. On the other side, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicants and submitted that learned first Appellate Court has rightly partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents no.2 to 4. That, it is admitted fact that Rs. 20 lacs were already paid to applicant Pravinaben and by court’s order further Rs. 21 lacs were paid in all Rs. 41 lacs are paid, however, it is incorrect to say that it was only towards the relinquishment of right on the immovable properties in favour of Harshadkumar Panchal ie., the Brother-in-law of Pravinaben. If the applicant says that Rs. 21 lacs as the outstanding amount for the payment on account of the relinquishment deed then she is supposed to execute the registered documents which she has not done. That, learned trial court has rightly passed order in favour of the respondents no.2 to 4 and on the basis of the order of the trial court and considering the legal aspects, the learned First Appellate Court has rightly partly allowed the appeal of the respondents no.2 to 4 as respondents no.2 to 4 are legally entitled to get such amount and they have right over the property of her husband and get maintenance amount also from the members of her marital house. Ultimately, it was submitted by learned advocate for the respondents no.2 to 4 has requested to reject the present application filed by the applicants. 6. Ultimately, it was submitted by learned advocate for the respondents no.2 to 4 has requested to reject the present application filed by the applicants. 6. Learned APP for the respondent no.1-State has submitted that the dispute between the parties is relating to the family members as the respondents no.2 to 3 are the daughter in law and grand daughter of the applicant no.1 and thus, she has requested to pass necessary orders. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the averments made by the applicants in the present application, it appears that the respondent no.2 was married with the son of the applicant no.1 and respondents no.3 to 4 are the children of the respondent no.2 and learned trial court has granted an application under the Domestic Violence Act being Criminal Misc. Application No. 226 of 2000 wherein the learned trial court has granted the maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,000/- per month to each of the respondents no.2, 3 and 4 and granted Rs. 5,000/- to the applicant every month for alternative arrangement of residence and as against the said order, the applicants as well as respondents no.2 to 4 have filed Criminal Appeals before the first Appellate Court respectively and while conducting the matter, learned first Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents no.2 to 4 enhancing the amount of maintenance granted to them and directed that respondents no.2 to 4 are entitled to get maintenance to the tune of RS. 10,000/- per month to each and as against that order, present applicants have approached this court. 8. While considering the judgment passed by the learned first Appellate Court, it appears that learned Judge below has concluded that the respondents no.3 to 4 are studying in the Engineering and the joint business belongs to husband of the respondent no.2 and father of the respondents no.3 and 4 is in custody of the applicant no.3 as an individual owner and the show rooms are situated in the cream area of Dahod Town which cannot be ignored. It is further concluded by learned first Appellate Court that Two sons of the applicant no.3 having motor cycle to attend college study and business property belongs to father of the respondents no.3 and 4 are in custody of the applicant no.3 is proved and thus, the respondents no.2 and 3 also entitled to get the same facilities as the facilities provided to two sons of the applicant no.3 who are college goings sons and thus, learned court below found that the amount of maintenance granted to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- is very less and thus, learned first appellate court has granted maintenance to respondents no.2 to 4 at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month. That, due to litigation, the respondents no.2 to 4 have suffered a lot in a manner of mental pain and thus, learned first appellate court has granted compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the respondents no.2 to 4. 9. In case of Smt. Bulu Das v. Ratan Das, reported in AIR 2010 (NOC) 615 (Gau.), it is held that verbal harassment includes in the act of cruelty, torture and other physical assault and in the present case, the respondent no.2 has deposed that she was verbally harassed and therefore, she has deposed that petitioner’s behaviour was not good when she declined to sign upon the stamp paper to relinquish the right and therefore, in such circumstances, she was subject to cruelty. 10. Thus, while considering the aforesaid discussion, it appears that the maintenance amount granted by the learned trial court and enhanced by learned first Appellate Court is proper and thus, this court deems it fit to reject the application filed by the applicants observing that the learned trial court and learned first Appellate Court has not committed any error while passing impugned order and therefore, present application stands rejected. 11. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated. 12. Trial court is directed to decide the execution application, if any, filed by the respondents no.2 to 4 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 13. Whatever amount deposited by the present applicants before this court and/or learned first Appellate Court be returned back to the family court concerned and family court will decide about the said amount in the Execution proceedings. 14. In view of the above findings, present application deserves to be rejected hence, rejected. 13. Whatever amount deposited by the present applicants before this court and/or learned first Appellate Court be returned back to the family court concerned and family court will decide about the said amount in the Execution proceedings. 14. In view of the above findings, present application deserves to be rejected hence, rejected. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.