JUDGMENT 1. Instant miscellaneous application has been preferred on behalf of the applicant/respondent No.1 viz., Sunita Choudhary for modification/clarification of the order dated 23.01.2014 passed by this Court. 2. This Court on 23.01.2014 on the basis of the 'consensus' arrived at between the learned counsel for the parties, had passed the following order:- 1. "Sunita Chaudhary was married with Manoj Kumar, son of the petitioners. During the course of arguments, this Court was informed that Manoj Kumar is posted as Lt. Colonel in the Indian Army. It has been very fairly stated that during subsistence of marriage, from the loins of Manoj Kumar, Sunita Chaudhary has given birth to a son whose age is 12 years. 2. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that an amount Rs. 35,000/- per month is being paid to the respondent aggrieved daughter-in-law by her husband Manoj Kumar, son of the petitioners. It is stated that the Military Authorities have passed an order regarding payment of part of the salary to the wife and child as maintenance. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial court earlier had passed interim order directing the petitioners to provide accommodation to the aggrieved wife in the house in which they are residing. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that subsequently, the trial court had rejected prayer of the respondent daughter-in-law regarding possession of shared accommodation. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has stated that aggrieved against the same, aggrieved daughter-in-law had filed an appeal before the appellate court under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and the appellate court had remanded the matter to the trial court. Hence, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioners. 5. At the out set, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the respondent is daughter-in-law and mother of their grand child without admitting her claim on merits, petitioners are ready to provide a reasonable amount to enable their daughter-in-law to take accommodation on rent. 6. It is stated that petitioners are living in a house of 200 square yards and respondent daughter-in-law will be entitled to one room accommodation. 7. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that for a payment of Rs. 4000/- per month, respondent daughter-in-law will be able to take commensurate accommodation on rent. 8. Shri Ashvin Garg, counsel appearing for the respondent daughter-in-law has stated that amount of Rs. 7. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that for a payment of Rs. 4000/- per month, respondent daughter-in-law will be able to take commensurate accommodation on rent. 8. Shri Ashvin Garg, counsel appearing for the respondent daughter-in-law has stated that amount of Rs. 4000/- per month will not be sufficient as the respondent daughter-in-law require two room set and at least an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month should be paid to the respondent daughter-in-law. 9. During the course of arguments, counsel for both the parties have arrived at consensus that payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month shall be made by the petitioners to the respondent daughter-in-law and that will serve the ends of justice. 10. After hearing counsel for both the sides, this Court is of the view that this Court should grant due sanctity to the consensus arrived between the parties during the course of arguments. 11. Consequently, the present petition is, disposed of with a direction that petitioners shall continue to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the daughter-in-law and their grand son till the grand son attains majority. 12. In view of the order passed on the basis of consensuses arrived at between the parties, the claim of the respondent sofar as accommodation is, concerned, the same stands adjudicated and therefore, the orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court, on this score shall not prevail. However, the dispute regarding maintenance and other issues is, kept open. 3. This Court had requested the learned counsel appearing for the parties that looking to the plight of the lady and the grand-son, the grand-parents should provide funds commensurate for provision of an alternative accommodation. 4. It seems that the efforts made by the Court has gone waste and the aggrieved-wife is not interested to receive Rs. 5000/- from her in-laws or reside in alternative accommodation for which petitioners had agreed to provide monetary compensation. 5. Applicant/respondent No.1, viz., Sunita Choudhary by way of filing the present miscellaneous application prayed that the case be decided on the merits and the word "consensus" from the order dated 23.01.2014 may be deleted.Prayer made is, hereby, allowed. 6. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is again taken up on the Board and is being decided on merit. 7. 6. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is again taken up on the Board and is being decided on merit. 7. Before dealing with the issue raised before this Court, it is necessary to put brief factual matrix of the present case. 8. Sunita Choudhary, respondent No.1 was married with non-petitioner No.2, namely Manoj Kumar, the son of present petitioners way back on 01.12.1999. Manoj, the son of the petitioners, at the time of marriage, was Commissioned as Officer in the Indian Army. Thereafter, he gained many promotions and at present he is Lieutenant Colonel. 9. According to the petitioners, Sunita Choudhary, applicant/respondent No.1 stayed with her husband at various places of postings in the accommodation provided by the Indian Army. According to the petitioners, in July, 2011, their son Manoj was posted at Delhi and respondent - Sunita Choudhary had stayed with her family in a Government accommodation. 10. A dispute arose between Sunita and her husband Manoj in July, 2013. 11. It is a definite stand of the petitioners that House No.4, Ganga Colony, Khatipura, Jaipur is self-acquired property of petitioner No.1 - Hari Singh, father-in-law of Sunita Choudhary. 12. It is canvassed before this Court that the petitioner No.1 - Hari Singh, father-in-law of Sunita Choudhary, has built this house for peaceful retired life in the last days of his life. 13. The stand of the petitioners is discernible from the following portion of the order dated 12.09.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. 12. It is canvassed before this Court that the petitioner No.1 - Hari Singh, father-in-law of Sunita Choudhary, has built this house for peaceful retired life in the last days of his life. 13. The stand of the petitioners is discernible from the following portion of the order dated 12.09.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. " mudk dguk gS fd fnlEcj] 2011 rd rks vihykFkhZx.k ls Jhefr lqfurk ( izR;FkhZ dze&2 ) dk dksbZ ysuk nsrk ugha FkkA mudk dguk gS fd fnukad 3-3-2012 dks lqfurk us ,d i= oSyQs;j dkEiysDl] gsMDokVZj ,evksMh ( vkehZ ) ] ubZ fnYyh dks fy[kk] ftlesa mlus viuk irk okMZ ua0&9] eksgrk /keZ'kkyk ds ihNs lknqyiqj] ftyk pq: fy[kk gSA mudk dguk gS fd lqfurk us ,d i= eSustj] LVsV cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] t;iqj dSUV dks fy[kk] tks cSad dks fnukad 12-3-2012 dks izkIr gqvk] esa Hkh viuk irk okMZ ua0&9] eksgrk /keZ'kkyk ds ihNs] lknqyiqj] ftyk pq: fy[kk gSA mudk dguk gS fd fnukad 18-3-2012 dks lqfurk us ,d Lej.k i=&2 oSyQs;j dkEiySDl] gSMDokV ,evksMh ( vkehZ ) ] ubZ fnYyh dks fy[kk] ftlesa mlus viuk i=k okMZ ua0&9] eksgrk /keZ'kkyk ds ihNs] lknqyiqj] ftyk pq: fy[kk gSA mudk dguk gS fd fnukad 7-8-2012 dks lqfurk us ,d i= vkehZ vf/kdkjh] ds;j vkWQ 56 ,ihvks dks fy[kk] ftlesa Hkh mlus viuk irk okMZ ua0&9] eksgrk /keZ'kkyk ds ihNs] lknqyiqj] ftyk pq: fy[kk gSA mudk dguk gS fd fnukad 11-8-2012 dks lqfurk us ,d Lej.k i=&8 oSyQs;j dkEiySDl gSMDokVZj ,evksMh ( vkehZ ) ] ubZ fnYyh dks fy[kk] ftlesa Hkh mlus viuk irk okMZ ua0&9] /keZ'kkyk ds ihNs] lknqyiqj ftyk pq: fy[kk gSA mudk dguk gS fd fnukad 14-1-2013 dks lqfurk us ,d i= ihlhMh, ( vks ) xksyhckj eSnku] iq.ks dks fy[kk] ftlesa Hkh mlus viuk irk okMZ ua0&9] eksgrk /keZ'kkyk ds ihNs] lknqyiqj] ftyk pq: fy[kk gSA mudk dguk gS fd fnukad 16-1-2013 dks lqfurk us ,d i= oSyQs;j dkEiySDl] gSMDokVZj ,evksMh ( vkehZ ) ] ubZ fnYyh dks fy[kk] ftlesa Hkh mlus viuk irk okMZ ua0&9] eksgrk /keZ'kkyk ds ihNs] lknqyiqj] ftyk pq: fy[kk gSA mudk dguk gS fd fnukad 20-3-2013 ,oa 10-5-2013 dks lqfurk us tks i= fy[ks gSa] muesa Hkh mlus viuk irk okMZ ua0 9] eksgrk /keZ'kkyk ds ihNs] lknqyiqj] ftyk pq: fy[kk gSA mudk dguk gS fd fnukad 15-5-2013 dks lqfurk us ,d i= tujy fodze flag] ,evksMh vkehZ] ubZ fnYyh dks fy[kk] ftlesa Hkh mlus viuk irk okMZ ua0&9] eksgrk /keZ'kkyk ds ihNs] lknqyiqj] ftyk pq: fy[kk gSA mudk dguk gS fd 'kknh ds ckn og ( lqfurk ) ges'kk vius ifr eukst dqekj ds lkFk jgh rFkk dHkh Hkh og vihykFkhZ ds edku ua0 4] xaxk dkyksuh] [kkrhiqjk jksM+] t;iqj esa ugha jgh vkSj >xM+s ds ckn okg vius ihgj lknqyiqj] ftyk pq: vk x;hA feyV~h uksnZu dek.M ds duZy ds vkns'k fnukad 21-11-2012 ds }kjk lqfurk ds iq= fl)kUr ds Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh jkf'k Lohd'fr dh bZ gS] bl i= esa Hkh viuk irk lknqyiqj] ftyk pq: fy[kk gqvk gSA rFkk fnukad 20-7-2013 ds i= ds tfj;s lqfurk ,oa mlds iq= dks Hkj.k iks"k.k dh jkf'k 35 izfr'kr eukst dqekj ds osru esa ls fnykbZ xbZ gS] mlesa Hkh lqfurk dk irk lknqyiqj] ftyk pq: gh vafdr gSA " 14. It is further a case of the petitioners that while they were apprehending their arrest and away from their house, under the orders passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, the respondent - Sunita Choudhary, daughter-in-law had taken possession of part of the house. 15. Contrary to the above stand taken by the petitioners, Sunita Choudhary, applicant/respondent No.1 has stated that there is a LPG domestic Gas connection in her name pertaining to the house, in question. Her son, Sidharth, was also born at the house No.4, Ganga Colony, Khatipura, Jaipur. Furthermore, election Identity Card issued by the Election Commission also depicts address of Sunita Choudhary at the same place. Driving licence has also been issued to her pertaining to same house. Furthermore, she is having a bank account at ICICI Bank in which she has given address of this very house. 16. Having taken note of the stand taken by the parties, it is necessary to take resume of litigation between the parties. The petitioners are being tried for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A I.P.C. in the F.I.R. lodged by Sunita Choudhary, applicant/respondent No.1. 17. Pertaining to present case, an application was presented on 15.07.2013 by Sunita Choudhary, respondent No.1 [aggrieved-wife] under Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur. On the very same day, Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur passed an ex-parte order that the petitioners should permit respondent No.1, [aggrieved-wife], Sunita Choudhary to reside in the house and also provide uniform and books to the child of the respondent No.1 [aggrieved-wife]. 18. On 16.07.2013 again an ex-parte order was passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, wherein he noted that the S.H.O. Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur has presented a report in which he had stated that house is locked and nobody was present in the house. Opposite party i.e. Hari Singh was contacted on mobile phone bearing No.992943056. He was asked to open the lock and permit the applicant/respondent no.1, Sunita Choudhary to reside therein. After perusing the report, Metropolitan Magistrate ordered that the lock of the house be broken and the "fard" of the proceedings be prepared and the goods lying in the house be photographed. 19. Aggrieved against the aforesaid ex-parte order dated 15.07.2013, the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. After perusing the report, Metropolitan Magistrate ordered that the lock of the house be broken and the "fard" of the proceedings be prepared and the goods lying in the house be photographed. 19. Aggrieved against the aforesaid ex-parte order dated 15.07.2013, the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The learned Judge vide its order dated 12.09.2013 had set aside the ex-parte order dated 15.07.2013 and further directed the Court of Magistrate to pass a fresh order, after hearing all concerned. 20. After the matter was remanded back, the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, No.14, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur vide its order dated 17.10.2013 relying upon the case of S.R. Batra and another v. Smt. Taruna Batra, reported in A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 1118 gave a categoric finding that the house, in question is a self-acquired property of the petitioner No.1, Hari Singh and Sunita Choudhary, applicant/respondent No.1 had not denied that she is receiving Rs. 36,478/- from the army authorities as maintenacne from the salary of her husband. 21. Sunit Choudhary, applicant/respondent No.1 challenged the above order by filing an appeal before the Special Judge [Fake Currency Cases] & Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The Special Judge vide its impugned order dated 30.10.2013 held that Sunita Choudhary, applicant/respondent no.1 [aggrieved-wife] is residing in the same house and, therefore, disposed off the appeal with direction to the Metropolitan Magistrate to decide the interim application afresh on the basis of facts and circumstances of the present case in accordance with the provisions of law. 22. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the orders passed by the Courts below. 23. In the present case, twice the matter has been remitted back by the Appellate Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that again remittance of the matter to the appellate Court will not serve any useful purpose as the parties cannot suffer because the sole issue before this Court is not being adjudicated. The appellate Court below should have decided the issue as to whether the house, in question is a 'shared house' or not?, taking into consideration the authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.B. Batra's case [supra]. 24. The categoric finding was given by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur that the house, in question is a self-acquired property of the petitioner No.1, Hari Singh. 25. 24. The categoric finding was given by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur that the house, in question is a self-acquired property of the petitioner No.1, Hari Singh. 25. From all the evidence led, applicant/respondent No.1 [aggrieved-wife], Sunita Choudhary had failed to prove that the said house belongs to her husband or was taken on rent by her husband or the house belongs to the joint family, whereas the petitioner No.1, Hari Singh had proved that the house was self-acquired property. 26. Ratio of law laid down in S.R. Batra's case [supra] has found approval in another judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel and others, reported in (2008) 4 S.C.C. 649 , wherein His Lordships has held as under:- "21. Maintenance of a married wife, during subsistence of marriage, is on the husband. It is a personal obligation. The obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law arises only when the husband has died. Such an obligation can also be met from the properties of which the husband is a co-sharer and not otherwise. For invoking the said provision, the husband must have a share in the property. The property in the name of the mother-in-law can neither be a subject matter of attachment nor during the life time of the husband, his personal liability to maintain his wife can be directed to be enforced against such property. 27. The Domestic Violence Act provides for a higher right in favour of a wife. She not only acquires a right to be maintained but also thereunder acquires a right of residence. The right of residence is a higher right. The said right as per the legislation extends to joint properties in which the husband has a share. 28. Interpreting the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act this Court in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra : (2007) 3 SCC 169 held that even a wife could not claim a right of residence in the property belonging to her mother-in-law, stating : "17. There is no such law in India like the British Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967, and in any case, the rights which may be available under any law can only be as against the husband and not against the father-in-law or mother-in-law. 18. There is no such law in India like the British Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967, and in any case, the rights which may be available under any law can only be as against the husband and not against the father-in-law or mother-in-law. 18. Here, the house in question belongs to the mother-in-law of Smt Taruna Batra and it does not belong to her husband Amit Batra. Hence, Smt Taruna Batra cannot claim any right to live in the said house. 19. Appellant 2, the mother-in-law of Smt Taruna Batra has stated that she had taken a loan for acquiring the house and it is not a joint family property. We see no reason to disbelieve this statement." 27. Counsel appearing for the petitioners again relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Batra [supra], wherein it was held that the aggrieved-wife is not entitled to 'shared accommodation' in the property, which belongs to the father-in-law, but it was also observed in the judgment that the wife is only entitled to 'shared accommodation', which exclusively belong to her husband. 28. In Para 28 of the aforesaid judgment, it was observed as under:- "28. As regards Section 17 (1) of the Act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared house-hold, 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. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband Amit Batra is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant No.2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence, it cannot be called a 'shared household'." 29. A perusal of the judgment dated 30.10.2013 clearly reveals that the Special Judge [Fake Currency Cases] & Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur had not taken into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Batra's [supra]. 30. Consequently, the present miscellaneous application, revision petition and the stay application, filed therewith, are accepted and the impugned order is set aside. 31. 30. Consequently, the present miscellaneous application, revision petition and the stay application, filed therewith, are accepted and the impugned order is set aside. 31. However, considering the fact that the son of Sunita Choudhary, respondent no.1 is undertaking the examination, the period of fifteen-days to vacate the premises is extended for a period of two months from receipt of certified copy of this order.Revision allowed. *******