S. S. Shinde, J
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of counsel appearing for the parties petition is being heard finally.
2. This Petition takes an exception to the order dated 07th July 2015 passed by the learned Sessions Court at Sindhudurg in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of
2015.
3. It is the case of the Petitioners that, they are original complainants and filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 88 of 2013 before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Savantwadi against the Respondent No. 1 herein under Section 12(a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'). In the said complaint it has been stated that, marriage between the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 took place
on 21.06.1996 and Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are daughters of Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 herein.
In Criminal Misc. Application No. 88 of 2013 filed by the Petitioners, notice was issued to Respondent no. 1 and Respondent No. 1 filed his say in the
said proceedings. The Petitioner No. 1 herein examined herself as well two other witnesses and the Respondent No. 1 has also examined himself. The
trial Court after hearing the respective Counsels appearing for Petitioners as well as Respondent No. 1 was pleased to pass order thereby partly
allowed the Criminal Complaint and directed Respondent No. 1 herein to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/Â per month to the Petitioners from the date
of complaint and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/Â.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20th March 2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Sawantwadi in Criminal
Misc. Application No. 88 of 2013, the Respondent No. 1 herein filed Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2015 before the Sessions Court at Sindhudurg. The
Appellate Court after hearing the Counsels appearing for the parties allowed the Appeal and was pleased to set aside the judgment and order dated
20.03.2013. Hence, this Petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submit that, there was no reason for the Appellate Court to cause interference in the order passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sawantwai. It is submitted that, the findings recorded by the Appellate Court that, there is no harassment
on the part of the Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner No. 1 is perverse. It is submitted that, the Appellate Court totally relying upon by the crossÂ‐
examination of the Petitioner No. 1 came to the conclusion that petitioner no. 1 herself started residing separately from Respondent No. 1 and
therefore, it is not necessary to entertain the complaint filed by the Petitioners herein. In fact, there was other evidence on record which has been
brushed aside by the learned Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that, the Appellate Court has not taken into consideration
evidence of Petitioner No. 1 that, Respondent No. 1 is not paying amount towards the maintenance to the Petitioners and also not looking after the
interest of Petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4 as well as their education and it is difficult to maintain petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4from the maintenance amount
received by the Respondent No. 1.
6. It is submitted that, Petitioners are residing in the same flat which Respondent No. 1 claims to have been sold. The Appellate Court has not
considered the submissions of the Petitioner that, the said flat is in possession of the Petitioners. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner relying upon the pleadings in the Petition, grounds taken therein and annexures thereto and reasons recorded by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Sawantwadi, while allowing the Misc. Criminal Application submits that Petition deserved to be allowed.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 invites attention of this Court to the reasons assigned by the Appellate Court in
the impugned judgment and submits that, the Petitioner No. 1 admitted all the suggestions given by the Respondent No. 1 during crossÂexamination.
He further submits that, Respondent No. 1 is taking proper care of the Petitioners. Therefore, learned counsel submits that there is no substance in the
Petition and therefore, Petition may be rejected.
8. So far as maintaining the Petitioners are concern, during the course of arguments learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 submitted that proper care
of the Petitioners is being taken by the Respondent No. 1.
9. Upon appreciating rival submissions and material placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the findings and reasons recorded by the
Appellate Court appears to be inconsonance with the evidence brought on record and in particular crossÂexamination of Petitioner No. 1. The
appellate Court has adverted to the crossÂexamination of petitioner No. 1 in Para No. 13 of the impugned judgment. It appears that, from reading the
crossÂexamination of Petitioner No. 1, it is observed in the impugned judgment that Respondent No. 2 is willing to cohabit with Petitioner No. 1 and to
that effect letter was also send by him to Petitioner No. 1. However, Petitioner No. 1 did not go for cohabitation to Respondent No. 1. Even the letter
send by Respondent No. 1 was not accepted by Petitioner No. 1. Though Respondent No. 2 was willing to take the premises on rent for residence of
Petitioners, the Petitioner No. 1 is not willing to reside in rented premises. Petitioner No. 1 also admitted in her crossÂexamination that the allegations
made against Respondent No. 1, that he assaulted her on 26.06.2013 are also false. Therefore, the Appellate Court has considered the evidence in its
entirety, and from the evidence on record found that there is no domestic violence at the instance of Respondent No. 1 as alleged by the petitioners,
and accordingly allowed the Criminal Appeal.
10. From an independent scrutiny and perusal of the evidence of petitioner No. 1 and in particular crossÂexamination, this Court is of the opinion that
the view taken by the Appellate Court is reasonable, plausible and findings recorded are inconsonance with the evidence on record. Therefore, no
case is made out to cause interference in the impugned judgment and order of the Appellate Court.
11. With the above observations, Writ Petition stands rejected. Rule stands discharge.
