JUDGMENT : 1. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that learned counsel for the revisionist has filed some documents along with another stay application, but perusal of record shows that she has already filed an stay application alongwith memo of revision. So learned counsel for the revisionist wants to withdraw this additional stay application. Learned counsel for opposite no. 2 has no objection to it, therefore, his prayer for withdrawal of this additional stay application is allowed. 2. Accordingly, the additional application seeking stay is dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. Perused the record. 4. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.08.2022, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut, in Appeal No. 84 of 2021 (Sandeep Mittal Vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby the appeal was allowed and the order dated 24.9.2021, passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) (Fast Track Court), Offence against Women, Meerut was set aside and appellant no. 2 was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to her wife (present revisionist) for rental house in Case No. 6504 of 2015 (91556 of 2015) (Smt. Shailja Mittal Vs. Sandeep Mittal), allowed the application under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with the direction to opposite party no. 1 (Sandeep Mittal), not to disturb her residence in common/shared house i.e. 28 Meera Enclave, Garh Road, Meerut. 5. The brief facts of the revision are that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals on 26.02.1995. Out of their wedlock a male child was born. It is alleged that in the course of time, there arose difference between the husband and wife. At this, the revisionist (wife) filed an application dated 16.03.2021 under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act. Before Civil Judge (J.D.) (Fast Track Court), Offence against Women, Meerut, to which opposite party no. 2 (husband) filed objections. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and evidence on record, passed by the Magistrate concerned vide its order dated 24.09.2021 allowed the application of revisionist to reside into the common/shared house, situated at 28 Meera Enclave, Garh Road, Meerut. The said order was get complied with. 2 (husband) filed objections. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and evidence on record, passed by the Magistrate concerned vide its order dated 24.09.2021 allowed the application of revisionist to reside into the common/shared house, situated at 28 Meera Enclave, Garh Road, Meerut. The said order was get complied with. Aggrieved by this order, opposite party no. 2, Sandeep Mittal filed Appeal No. 84 of 2021 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, which was allowed by him vide impugned order dated 20.8.2022 and the order dated 20.8.2022 was set aside on the ground that there is dispute between the parties, they do not have cordial relation with each other, and appellant shall pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the revisionist to hire a rental house for her residence. The revisionist had also filed Suit No. 165 of 2016 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance which was allowed and the opposite party no. 2 was directed to pay Rs. 7,500/- per month as maintenance amount to the revisionist. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.8.2022, the revisionist filed the present revision. 6. For ready reference, the orders passed by both the trial Magistrate on 24.9.2021 and Appellate Court on 20.8.2022 are reproduced herein under:- (1) Order passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) (Fast Track Court), Offence against Women, Meerut on 24.9.2021 (2) Order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut on 20.8.2022 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist (Wife) submitted that she revisionist lived in combined/common house with Respondent no. 2 (husband) from the date of her marriage i.e. 26.02.1995 to 20.06.2016. In the course of time opposite party no. 2 engaged in extra marital affairs with his maid, namely, Geeta. On protest to this ugly act of husband started committing domestic violence and cruelty on revisionist (wife) and on her son. On 26.6.2016 respondent no. 2 (husband) attacked the revisionist (wife) with intention to kill her. She suffered grave injuries and got her medical treatment from Dayawati Modi Nursing Home Meerut. After treatment, when she returned to residence (shared matrimonial house), husband did not allow her and her son to enter into the house in question. She next submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 20.8.2022 has illegally been passed without appreciating the evidence on record in right perspective. After treatment, when she returned to residence (shared matrimonial house), husband did not allow her and her son to enter into the house in question. She next submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 20.8.2022 has illegally been passed without appreciating the evidence on record in right perspective. The Appellate Court has completely misread, misinterpreted and misappreciated the evidence on record. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 20.8.2022 is liable to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is strenuously urged that order under revision does not suffer from any serious illegality and perversity in law, as such the learned Appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned order dated 20.8.2022. 9. To deal with the correctness various terms "domestic relationship, “shared household” and “domestic violence" etc used in the present controversy. A brief resume of such terms having material bearing on the issues involved in the present revision will be helpful in adjudicating the controversy involved in the present criminal revision. Following relevant terms are defined in u/s 2 and 3 of PW for DV Act. Which are quoted herein-under: Section "2. Definitions .--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- ............ (f) "domestic relationship" means 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 a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family; ............ (s) "shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. Section 3. Section 3. Definition of domestic violence.--For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it-- (a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or (c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or (d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person. Explanation I.--For the purposes of this section,-- (i) "physical abuse" means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force; (ii) "sexual abuse" includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman; (iii) "verbal and emotional abuse" includes-- (a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and (b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested. (iv) "economic abuse" includes-- (a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance; (b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and (c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household. Explanation II.--For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes "domestic violence" under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration." 10. it is an admitted case both the parties that marital relations between them and it subsists till date. They are legally wedded as husband and wife. Out of their wedlock a son born to them. Who is also living with the revisionist. It has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 that after their marriage the revisionist resided with respondent no. 2, in the house situated at 28 Meera Enclave, Garh Road, Meerut. Thus, as per definition of the domestic relationship is under section 2(f) of D.V. Act,2005, Since both of them were living in the same house from the inception of their marriage i. e. 26.02.1995 in the house in question and they had held shared house as defined is u/s. 2(s) of D.V. Act. In the course of time the dispute arose between them, as alleged by revisionist, in view of husband respondent no. 2 having extra marital affairs with his Maid. Geeta. In the course of time the dispute arose between them, as alleged by revisionist, in view of husband respondent no. 2 having extra marital affairs with his Maid. Geeta. It is also alleged by revisionist committed, domestic violence as he attacked revisionist of his ugly act; he on 26.6.2016, in which she received grave injuries and under gone medical treatment at Dayawati Modi Nursing Home Meerut. It was only when she returned to her residence i. e. shared matrimonial home, respondent no. 2, did not allow her to enter the house in questions. As per the definition under Section 3 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, this act of respondent no. 2 falls under the domestic violence. 11. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 contended that besides, his real brother of respondent no. 2 his father and other family members are also residing in the house in question. Sharing of that house by the revisionist may cause unnecessary wrangle, bucking and scuffling, even made and to disturb the peace and harmony of these members. Moreover, present dispute is lasting since 2016 and there are serious litigation between the parties. So their living under one roof is dangerous to the life and health of respondent no. 2 and his family members. It is also submitted that respondent no. 2 is ready to pay Rs. 10,000/- as rent to facilitate the revisionist to reside in rented house. 12. Learned counsel for revisionist Refuting the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for respondent no. 2, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the house in question is a big house, consisting of 16 big and small rooms. The revisionist is in possession only two rooms on the 1st floor of the house in question. 13. Learned counsel for revisionist next submitted that it is an admitted fact that the father of respondent no 2 was the owner of the house in question. His father Shobha Lal Mittal (father-in-law of the revisionist) had died on 07.12.2020. His brother Dr. Pradeep Mittal resides at A-38 Moti Prayag Colony Garh Road, Meerut, as is evident from the perusal of the WS filed in Suit No. 1057 of 2020, wherein he mentioned the above said address of the brother of respondent no. 2 Dr. Pradeep Mittal. 14. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent no. His brother Dr. Pradeep Mittal resides at A-38 Moti Prayag Colony Garh Road, Meerut, as is evident from the perusal of the WS filed in Suit No. 1057 of 2020, wherein he mentioned the above said address of the brother of respondent no. 2 Dr. Pradeep Mittal. 14. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 that revisionist wants to take over the entire house situated at Meera Colony and wants to become the owner of that house. Learned counsel for the revisionist refuted this argument of respondent no. 2 and clarified that there is no apprehension in the mind of revisionist that she would take over the ownership of the house in question because after the death of the father, having ownership of the house, the ownership goes to the LRs of the deceased owner. Therefore, this apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is baseless and unreasonable and his argument is not tenable. 15. It is also an admitted fact that respondent no. 2 is also not residing with the revisionist in the house in question. This fact is also evident from the facts that he has given his present residential address in the memo of appeal as resident of house no. 468 Phool Bagh Colony, Meerut. In these circumstances, no other man reside with the revisionist. There arises no question of quarreling, causing heart to anyone in that residence. The learned appellate court erred in recording its conclusion in this behalf. 16. Thus, the revisionist is residing in the shared house since 24.09.2021. Respondent no. 2 was also residing with her in that house up to filing of the appeal before learned Sessions Judge and she is in possession of first floor consist of in two rooms. While, the residence is lying vacant, no one is there to resides in the house in question with the revisionist, it will be sheer wastage of money by providing the revisionist rental money of Rs.10,000/- to be spent as rent for living in any other accommodation. It may also be mentioned that for some time respondent no. 2 has expelled to the revisionist, but in compliance of the order dated 24.9.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (JD), S.S.P. Meerut, provided re-entry to the revisionist in the shared house in question. It may also be mentioned that for some time respondent no. 2 has expelled to the revisionist, but in compliance of the order dated 24.9.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (JD), S.S.P. Meerut, provided re-entry to the revisionist in the shared house in question. Since 24.9.2021, she is residing in the shared house situated at 28 Meera Enclave Garh Road, Meerut continuously. 17. Respondent no.2 was residing in their house at the time of filing appeal before Sessions Judge and She was in possession of 1st floor of the have in two rooms set. 18. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the learned appellate court regarding provision of Rs.10,000/- as rental money to the revisionist is also not sustainable. 19. Accordingly, the findings recorded by learned appellate court vide order dated 20.08.2022 is liable to be set aside and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) (Fast Track Court), offences against women, Meerut is liable to be upheld findings of the appellate court is perverse and against the law and facts. 20. Resultantly, the revision is allowed. The impugned order of the learned appellate court dated 20.08.2022 is set aside and quashed. Order passed by learned Civil Judge (JD) (Fast Track Court), is affirmed. Respondent no. 2 (husband) is directed not to interfere in residence of the revisionist in the shared house in question.