Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1359 (PNJ)

Budh Ram v. Shammi Devi

2014-09-29

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The contour of the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, initially, complainant-respondent-Shammi Devi widow of Ashok Kumar son of Budh Ram, has preferred a petition (Annexure P-1) under Sections 3, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) against her parents-in-law petitioners-Budh Ram and his wife Sundri Devi. The petition for interim protection filed by her was accepted. She was held entitled to reside and the petitioners were restrained from evicting her from the shared house in question, by way of impugned order dated 23.04.2011, by the trial Court. 2. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal filed by the petitioners, was dismissed as well by virtue of impugned order dated 10.08.2011 by the Appellate Court. 3. Sequelly, the petitioners did not feel satisfied and preferred the present revision petition, to challenge the impugned orders, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.P.C. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit and the instant revision petition deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons mentioned here-in-below, in this context. 5. During the course of preliminary hearing, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent did not require any accommodation, as she was putting up in the hostel of Bansal Nursing Home, Alikan, Tehsil & District Sirsa. Therefore, the report was sought from the pointed nursing home in this regard by this Court. Subsequently, this contention on behalf of the petitioner was found to be untenable, in view of the report, which is to the effect that the respondent was not residing in the indicated hostel of Bansal Nursing Home, as contrary urged on behalf of the petitioners. 6. Subsequently, this contention on behalf of the petitioner was found to be untenable, in view of the report, which is to the effect that the respondent was not residing in the indicated hostel of Bansal Nursing Home, as contrary urged on behalf of the petitioners. 6. Faced with the situation, ex facie, the arguments of the learned counsel that, since the respondent is a quarrelsome lady and it is not in the interest of the petitioners, to reside with her in the same house, so, the courts below committed a legal mistake, to permit her to share the house, in question, with them, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record that, the marriage of complainant-respondent was solemnized with Ashok Kumar, son of the petitioners, on 10.03.1999. After solemnization of the marriage, they resided together as a husband and wife, cohabited as such and a minor child, namely, Charu, was born out of their said wedlock, who is now aged about eight years and is in the custody of the petitioners. It was claimed that there was some dispute between her husband Ashok Kumar and his brothers. Ashok Kumar was stated to have been murdered by one Goldy son of Manohar Lal, with the connivance of his (Ashok Kumar) brothers and parents. Thereafter, a criminal murder case was registered against them. After the murder of Ashok Kumar, the petitioners were stated to have treated the complainant with cruelty and threatened to evict her from the shared house in question. Taking into consideration the attending circumstances and the material on record, interim protection was granted to her by means of impugned order dated 23.04.2011 by the Magistrate, which in substance is as under:- “In the instant case, it is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner No.1 was not staying in the house belonging to the respondents as she along with her deceased husband had already left the house and started living separately. But there is nothing to show that applicant left the house on her own. The marriage of the petitioner with deceased Ashok is not disputed. But there is nothing to show that applicant left the house on her own. The marriage of the petitioner with deceased Ashok is not disputed. Since Section 17 confers a right upon every women in a domestic relationship to reside in the shared household, women seeking protection under Section 17 has to establish that she was or is in domestic relationship and that the said right sought to be enforced is against the shared household. Section 17(1) of the Act describes that the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household and a shared household would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband; or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. In the instant case, the relationship of the applicant with the respondents is well established and it is evident that she certainly resided with the respondents and lived together with them in the shared household with her deceased husband. Section 2(S) of the Act defines a shared household and in terms of the said definition also the petitioner satisfies the condition that she lived in a domestic relationship with the respondents. In a society like ours if a women is taunted after the death of her husband, she may not enter the matrimonial home out of fear resulting in returning to her parental home straightway. This court is of the view that the right of petitioner to protection under Section 17 of the Act co-exists with her right to live the shared household and it does not matter whether she had marked her physical presence after the death of her husband in the shared household or not. For the aforesaid reasons and considering the entire conspectus of this case, it is held that petitioner has a right to reside in the shared household and shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondents save in accordance with the procedure established by the law. Hence, the present application stands allowed.” 8. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has correctly permitted the destitute complainant-respondent, to share the house, in question. Hence, the present application stands allowed.” 8. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has correctly permitted the destitute complainant-respondent, to share the house, in question. The mere fact that she is quarrelsome lady and it is not advisable for the petitioners to live with her, cannot possibly be accepted, at this initial stage, in the absence of any evidence on record in this regard. All such intricate questions can only be decided during the course of trial after acceptance of evidence by the trial Court. Be that as it may, the mere alleged conduct of the complainant, ipso facto, is not a ground, much less cogent, to deny her the statutory facility of the shared house, in dispute. 9. Not only that, the case was again examined and the appellate Court has affirmed the order of the trial Court. That means, the Courts below have examined the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such orders, containing valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Section 401 Cr.P.C., unless & until, the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioners. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts & circumstances, oozing out from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. 12. Needless to mention that, nothing recorded here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so observed for the limited purpose of deciding the present revision petition in this relevant connection. ---------0.B.S.0------------