JUDGMENT : MD. MUMTAZ KHAN, J. 1. The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner/daughter-in-law assailing the order dated August 12, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2014 as also the judgment and order dated April 10, 2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Howrah in M. Case No. 340 of 2010 (TR No. 63 of 2010.) rejecting her application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act praying for protection order as also the residence order. The facts leading to the instant revision is that the petitioner filed an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as the PWDV Act) against her parents-in-laws as also sisters-in-laws seeking protection as also residence order under section 18/19 of the said Act which was registered as M. Case No. 340 of 2010 (TR 63/10). Thereafter, learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Howrah after recording evidence of both parties and after contested hearing dismissed the same by the impugned order holding that petitioner is not in need of any residence as she is residing peacefully with her husband in separate tenanted accommodation, therefore, shared household of the petitioner shifted to the tenanted accommodation and that no relief was sought for against the husband nor he was made party respondent and the house situated at Ramrajtola, Bakultola, Howrah belong to her father-in-law and is not a shared household property of the petitioner. 2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same petitioner preferred appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2014 before the court of Sessions and thereafter learned Additional Session Judge, 1st Court, Howrah after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal on contest and affirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Howrah by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same petitioner has preferred the instant revision questioning the propriety of the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below. 3. It was submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that petitioner was married with the son of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 and brother of opposite party Nos. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same petitioner has preferred the instant revision questioning the propriety of the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below. 3. It was submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that petitioner was married with the son of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 and brother of opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 in the year 2009 and started living with her husband in the matrimonial home but since after marriage disturbance started in the matrimonial home and she was subjected to cruelty by the opposite parties excepting her husband for which she as also her husband had to file complaint at the local PS and ultimately she was driven away from the matrimonial home along with her child. It was also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that due to the ill treatment mated out to the petitioner at the hands of the opposite parties petitioner's husband also left with the petitioner and thereafter petitioner along with her husband and child started leaving in a rented accommodations. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, it is the ancestral house where the petitioner after marriage started residing with her husband which comes under the purview of shared household and as such petitioner has right of residence there. According to him learned courts below were not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for protection order as also the residence order. 4. He relied upon the decision in the matter of Priti Dey (Chandra) v. Subhasis Dey reported in 2016(4) CHN (Cal) 303 in support of his submissions. 5. It was submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 that the marriage of the petitioner was the outcome of their love affairs against the will of the opposite parties for which they were not allowed entry in their house but only at the intervention of the neighbours and well wishers they allowed them to reside in their house. It was submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party Nos. It was submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 that during the stay in the house of the opposite No. 2, petitioner started creating problem and even misbehaved with the opposite parties for which they had to lodge a complaint at the PS and this petitioner also lodged a false complaint against the opposite parties and thereafter petitioner left the house along with her husband and child and started living separately in a rented accommodation and severed contact with the opposite parties. He also submitted that the house in question belong to the OP No. 2, father-in-law, of the petitioner and as such petitioner has no right of residence in the said house. He was also submitted that petitioner's husband is alive and it is his responsibility to provide residence and the petitioner can claim her right of residence only against her husband but surreptitiously no such claim has been made against the husband. According to the learned advocate for the opposite parties learned courts below taking into accounts the facts and circumstances of the case were quite justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner and there is illegality in the same which requires interference from this court. 6. He relied upon the decisions in the matter of S.R. Batra and Anr. v. Taruna Batra (Smt.) reported in (2007)3 SCC 169 in support of his submission. 7. Admittedly, petitioner has sought for relief against her parents-in-laws and sisters-in-laws and not against her husband. It is also admitted fact that petitioner is residing separately along with her husband in a separate accommodation. It also appears from the record that several litigation are pending in between the petitioner and her parents-in-laws namely the opposite parties. Learned Magistrate in the impugned order has elaborately discussed the evidence adduce by the parties where from it appears that the petitioner during her cross-examination admitted that her husband has a business at Ramrajatala Bus strand and for the last two years she was residing at a rented accommodation at Howrah with her husband and child and her husband has liability to maintain her and her child and that her matrimonial home is the exclusive property of her father-in-law. Petitioner's husband also admitted during cross-examination that he is residing with the petitioner/wife and the child for the last two years and that several cases are pending between his wife and his parents and those cases would not arise if his parents allow them to reside in their house. So from the above, it was evident that there are several litigations pending between parties showing bitter relations and the petitioner is residing with her husband in a separate accommodation away from her matrimonial home and she has not sought for any relief against her husband nor she has made him a party to the instant proceeding. The house in which the petitioner has claimed right of residence belongs to opposite party No. 2/father-in-law. Fact remains that for some time after marriage petitioner was allowed to reside at the house in question by her parents-in-laws and she resided there along with her husband but now for quite some time she is residing separately with her husband in a separate accommodation and no longer in need of alternative accommodation. There is also nothing on record to show that petitioner's husband was driven away by his parents. On the other hand, it appears that petitioner's husband left his parents and started living separately along with petitioner/wife and their child in a separate mess and accommodation and has severed his contact with the opposite parties and was no longer a member of joint family. The property in question belongs to the father-in-law of the petitioner and there was no evidence on record to show that it is an ancestral property and further more petitioner is residing with her husband in a separate accommodation for quite some time and no longer in need of alternative accommodation and as such in my opinion the said house in question is no longer a shared household. In the given circumstances I am of the opinion that petitioner's right of residence against her in-laws was not justified. Learned court below taking into account the fact that the petitioner is residing separately at another place in a rented accommodation along with her husband and daughter and the petitioner's father-in-law is the owner of the property in question and the petitioner has sought for relief only against her parents-in-law and sisters-in-law and not against her husband rejected the claim of the petitioner. There appears no illegality or irregularity in the decisions arrived by the learned courts below which requires any interference from this court. 8. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case the decision in the matter of Priti Dey (Chandra) v. Subhasis Dey (supra) does not help the petitioner in any way. 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed on contest. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties expeditiously upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard.