ORDER : Both these Criminal Revision Cases arise out of common Judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Visakhapatnam, in Crl.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2015, dated 26.06.2015. 2. Heard Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri N.Srihari, learned counsel for the 1st respondent as well as Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Facts in nutshell : Petitioners 1 & 2 in both the cases are the wife and minor child of the 1st respondent herein. The petitioners herein filed D.V.C.No.30 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (P&E) at Visakhapatnam under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking maintenance and other reliefs. (ii) Marriage of the 1st petitioner was performed with the 1st respondent on 21-04-1999 at Simhachalam Devastam, Visakhapatnam, and it is a love marriage. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with two male children on 13-02-2000 and 04-05-2004 respectively. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and other gold articles were presented by the parents of the 1st petitioner. 2nd respondent is the mother-in-law, 3rd respondent is the sister-in-law and 4th respondent is the husband of the 3rd respondent. As the marriage took place against the wishes of the parents of the 1st respondent, they started harassing the 1st petitioner. After the birth of children, 1st respondent also started ill-treating the 1st petitioner at the instigation of respondents 2 to 4 and neglected to look after them. As the 2nd petitioner is suffering from health ailments, he requires medical treatment. Subsequently, in view of misunderstandings between them, both the couple started living separately. The 1st respondent left the 2nd petitioner with the 1st petitioner and took the other child, who is hale and healthy. (iii) Suppressing all the facts, the 1st respondent filed O.P.No.583 of 2005 seeking divorce with all false allegations. The 1st petitioner also filed O.P.No.640 of 2005 for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court at Visakhapatnam tried both the matters together and passed a common Judgment, dated 16.03.2011, dismissing the O.P., filed by the 1st petitioner and allowing the O.P., filed by the 1st respondent granting divorce. Aggrieved by the said common order, the 1st petitioner preferred appeals in F.C.A.No.93 of 2011 and F.C.A.No.160 of 2011 before this Court and they are pending. 4. Aggrieved by the said common order, the 1st petitioner preferred appeals in F.C.A.No.93 of 2011 and F.C.A.No.160 of 2011 before this Court and they are pending. 4. On behalf of 1st petitioner, P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 have been marked. On behalf of respondent, R.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R12 have been marked. 5. After elaborate trial, the trial court partly allowed the petition granting maintenance to the 2nd petitioner @ Rs.4,000/- per month and denying the maintenance of the 1st petitioner, vide order, dated 17-04-2014. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2015 and the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. The Appellate Court relying on the Judgment reported in Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab & Another, 2012 Crl.J.R.(SC) 16 and also the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Koushik v. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami and 2 others, allowed the appeal filed by the 1st respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Both the Courts below mainly rejected the claim of the 1st petitioner on the ground that as on the date of filing of D.V.C., the couple is not residing together and as such, there is no domestic violence and divorce was granted by the Family Court on 16-03-2011 as the couple is residing separately from 2005 onwards on account of the disputes arose between them. 6. The view taken by both the Courts below is contrary to the following Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. They are : 1. V.D.Bhanot V.Savita Bhanot (2012) 3 SCC 183 2. Saraswathy V.Babu (2014) 3 SCC 712 3. Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and another 2014 (10) SCC, 736 4. Shailini Vs. Kishore (2015) 11 SCC 718 5. Lalita Toppo Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr (2019) 13 SCC 796 7. As seen from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Inderjit’s Case (Supra), though the couple is residing separately since long time, neglecting the wife and children without providing financial assistance amounts to economic abuse and it can be agitated under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005. As seen from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Inderjit’s Case (Supra), though the couple is residing separately since long time, neglecting the wife and children without providing financial assistance amounts to economic abuse and it can be agitated under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005. In such circumstances, the common Judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court in Crl.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2015 is liable to be set aside. 8. It is an admitted fact that since 2005, they are living separately on account of the disputes between them. Though, they are living separately since long time, as a husband, the 1st respondent is bound under law to provide maintenance to the petitioners 1 & 2. Moreover, it is admitted by the 1st respondent before the trial Court stating that he is getting a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month by running a Travel business. In addition, the oral and documentary evidence on record clearly shows that the 1st respondent has neglected to maintain them, though he is having sufficient means. Hence, the 1st respondent is liable to pay maintenance to the wife as well as to the child. 9. In that view of the matter, both these criminal revision cases are allowed setting aside the common order passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, in Crl.A.Nos.29 & 30 of 2015, dated 26.06.2015. Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-each (total sum of Rs.10,000/-) towards monthly maintenance to the petitioners 1 & 2. So far as the maintenance of the 2nd petitioner is concerned, 1st respondent is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- from the date of trial Court order, i.e., from 17.04.2014. So far as 1st petitioner is concerned, the 1st respondent is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- from the date of this order. The 1st respondent is further directed to pay arrears of maintenance of the 2nd petitioner, within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.