Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1820 (PNJ)

Sher Singh v. Surender

2012-12-13

M.JEYAPAUL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: - The revision petitioner prayed for interim injunction invoking the provisions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against his own son and daughter-in-law. 2. Both the Courts below held that the plaintiff was entitled to an order of interim injunction till determination of the appeal titled Surender v. Neelam filed against order dated 11.6.2011 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, or till the final disposal of the suit whichever was earlier. The father has come forward with the present revision aggrieved by the aforesaid order. 3. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 4. I find that the present revision is entirely devoid of any merit. 2nd respondent who is daughter-in-law of the revision petitioner had already obtained a residence order to live in the shared house-hold invoking the provision under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the 2005 Act), but the same was challenged before the appellate Court and the said order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, was stayed. 5. The shared house-hold means a house-hold where wife lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with her husband as per Section 2(s) of the 2005 Act. The Judicial Magistrate is competent to pass residence order invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the 2005 Act restraining the husband or his relatives from dispossessing or in any manner disturbing the possession of the wife from such shared house-hold. 6. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, has passed a residence order invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the 2005 Act. The said order has been stayed by the appellate Court. 7. It is found that the property is owned by the revision petitioner herein but the 2nd respondent has claimed right of residence from the property of the revision petitioner under the garb of shared house-hold. The appellate Court has to decide the appeal preferred as against the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind. Till then, the respondents have been restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the revision petitioner. The appellate Court has to decide the appeal preferred as against the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind. Till then, the respondents have been restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the revision petitioner. Further, any order that is passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be in operation only till a final decision is taken in the main suit. Both the Courts below, in view of the above facts and circumstances, have rightly taken a decision and restricted the operation of the interim order till the decision of the appeal as against the residence order or disposal of the main suit, whiever is earlier. I do not find any error in the order passed by the Courts below. Therefore, the revision fails and it stands dismissed.