JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —Heard. 2. Order dated 24.03.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (III) Kangra at Dharamshala in Criminal Revision No. 3-B/X/14 (Annexure P-10) , whereby order dated 23.12.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., in an application filed for implementation of order dated 3.10.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the same Court in an application under Sections 12, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'' in short) has been quashed, is under challenge in this petition. 3. This case has a chequered history. The parties are husband and wife. They were married to each other on 27.04.1990 at village Molichak Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. Out of this wedlock a daughter and son are born to them. The respondentwife after 12 years of marriage made allegations of her maltreatment and harassment by the petitioner. According to her, he had been leveling false allegations against her on one pretext or the other. It is in the year 2002, she was turned out of the matrimonial home. It is with such allegations a complaint under Sections 12, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act came to be filed by her against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra. Learned Magistrate after affording the parties an opportunity of being heard has ultimately allowed the complaint and the respondent was directed to pay Rs. 10, 000/- towards expenditure she incurred upon the treatment of their son Vijay Kumar and also to provide her suitable rented accommodation either at village Ustehar or in nearby vicinity. The rent thereof was to be paid by the petitioner-husband. Learned Magistrate keeping in view the allegations leveled by the parties against each other coupled with the on going litigation had observed further that a direction to the petitioner to provide a room to her in the shared house would not be fruitful. 4. The petitioner-husband has assailed the order, Annexure P-1 in an appeal filed under Section 29 of the Act. The appeal, however, was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Kangra at Dharamshala vide judgment dated 08.03.2013 (Annexure P-2) . 4. The petitioner-husband has assailed the order, Annexure P-1 in an appeal filed under Section 29 of the Act. The appeal, however, was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Kangra at Dharamshala vide judgment dated 08.03.2013 (Annexure P-2) . The respondent has preferred a petition in this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer that order, Annexure P-1 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra in her complaint under Sections 12, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act and order dated 8.3.2013, Annexure P-2 may be modified and a direction to her husband to allow her to live in the shared house passed. The petition so preferred came to be registered as Criminal Revision No. 4033 of 2013. The same was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 7.1.2014, Annexure P-4. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as follows:- "13. There is merit in the contention of Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, that in case his client is forced to permit the petitioner to live in the shared accommodation, it will vitiate atmosphere of the house, taking into consideration the litigation going on between the parties. It has come on record that the respondent has also filed divorce petition against the petitioner. Petitioner has also made a complaint at Police Station Baijnath and Women''s Commission at Shimla. There is allegation of adulterous life being lived by the petitioner. The petitioner has left the matrimonial house in the year 2001 and the complaint under the Act has been filed on 12.9.2007. She has never complained about the accommodation already given to her by the respondent for six long years. It is in these circumstances that the learned trial court has ordered the respondent to provide some suitable rented accommodation to the petitioner at Ustehar or in the vicinity. There is no perversity or any illegality in the impugned order dated 3.10.2007 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra in Criminal Complaint No.35-III/2007 and upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala in Criminal Appeal No.34-B/2007 vide judgment dated 8.3.2013." 5. This backdrop makes it crystal clear that in the proceedings instituted by the respondent against her husband under the Act, besides the medical expenses to the tune of Rs. This backdrop makes it crystal clear that in the proceedings instituted by the respondent against her husband under the Act, besides the medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 10, 000/-, she borne on the treatment of her son Vijay Kumar, a direction was also issued to him to provide her suitable accommodation either at village Ustehar or in the nearby vicinity as per her choice. The judgment, Annexure P-4 has, however, been further assailed by the respondent in the Hon''ble Apex Court and the matter is still pending disposal there. 6. The respondent in the meanwhile has preferred another application, Annexure P-5 for seeking implementation of the order dated 3.10.2007, Annexure P-1 passed in the complaint she had instituted against her husband under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner had preferred objections, Annexure P-6 thereto, whereas, the respondent filed reply, Annexure P-7 to the objections so preferred. Learned trial Court on hearing the parties on both sides has dismissed the application vide order dated 23.12.2013, Annexure P-8 with the observations that the respondent is not entitled to the arrears to the tune of Rs. 72, 000/- on account of rent she allegedly paid from November, 2007 to December, 2011 for the reason that her husband had to hire suitable accommodation subject to her handing over the vacant possession of his old house, in which she was residing. The relevant portion of this order reads as follows:- " In this context, it is relevant to mention that the perusal of the order dated 3.10.07, para No.12, goes to reveals that the relief as granted in favour of the petitioner was the direction to the respondent to provide some suitable accommodation to the petitioner on rent basis either at Ustehar or in the vicinity where the applicant will desire. The rent of the premises shall be paid entirely by the respondent. This order will be subjected to the condition that the applicant prior to the same, will had over the possession of the old house in favour of the respondent. The rent of the premises shall be paid entirely by the respondent. This order will be subjected to the condition that the applicant prior to the same, will had over the possession of the old house in favour of the respondent. However, the liability of the respondent will arise only in case the petitioner hands over the possession of the old house in favour of the respondent, but the reply as filed by the petitioner to the objections taken by the respondent, goes to show that she is still in possession of the house belonging to the respondent and at the same time she is claiming the rent of the rented accommodation. However, the objections as taken by the respondent are duly accompanied by the certificate of G.P. Ustehar which goes to show that the petitioner is still occupying the old house of the respondent. However, it has not been specifically denied by the petitioner that she did not hand over the respondent''s house. More over, there is no mention as to the date and time and how the possession was handed over to the respondent. This implies that the objections as taken by the respondent are tenable and at the same time, the applicant intends to take undue benefit of the order thereby claiming rent to the tune of Rs. 72, 000/- even without vacating the old house in favour of the respondent. Since, the order dated 3.10.07 passed by this Court was the conditional order and the condition precedent is not fulfilled which has taken away the right of the petitioner to seek the payment of rent. The petitioner can not blow hot and cold at the same time thereby placing the respondent in a awkward position thereby leaving no option of election for him. Therefore, no such relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner who did not approach the court with clean hands and is mis-using the contention thereof. Hence, the petition as filed by the application is dismissed with no order as to costs. File after completion be consigned to record room." 7. The respondent aggrieved by the order, Annexure P-8 has preferred a revision petition, which has been decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge (III) , Kangra at Dharamshala vide order dated 24.03.2015, Annexure P-10. Hence, the petition as filed by the application is dismissed with no order as to costs. File after completion be consigned to record room." 7. The respondent aggrieved by the order, Annexure P-8 has preferred a revision petition, which has been decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge (III) , Kangra at Dharamshala vide order dated 24.03.2015, Annexure P-10. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while taking note of the provisions contained under Section 31 of the Act has concluded that the application filed for implementation of order, Annexure P-1 was to be tried summarily and the order passed after framing charge and affording opportunity of being heard to the parties. It is this order, which is under challenge in this petition on the grounds interalia that learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly exercised the revisional jurisdiction for the reason that the material available on record was suggestive of that it was a conditional order and as the respondent had not complied with it her husband, the petitioner was not at any fault. She had been in possession of four room accommodation in village Ustehar. There was no evidence produced by her to show that she had taken on rent the accommodation from Balbir Singh of Banoori. The story to this effect was fabricated. The impugned order, as such, being arbitrary, harsh, unjust, oppressive and legally unsustainable has been sought to be quashed and set aside. 8. This petition presently is at the stage of admission because in the nature of the dispute involved, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage itself. On hearing the matter for some time on 24.08.2017, the following order came to be passed on that day:- "On having heard this matter for some time and going through the record, prima facie the respondent is not residing in rented accommodation hired by her husband, the petitioner herein, consequent upon the judgment, Annexure P-1, in complaint under Sections 12, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. and affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide judgment Annexure P-2. Although on the strength of the agreement, Annexure P-14 and the rent receipts Ext.P15 to Ext.P-18, learned counsel representing the petitioner-husband, has argued that consequent upon the judgment Annexure P-1, the accommodation was hired through one Desh Raj of Village and Post Office Banuri, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, for being occupied by the respondent, however, in view of the submissions that she did not occupy the same, the fact remains that the respondents is not residing in any rented accommodation. Whether respondent is residing in the old house of the petitioner-husband, is again a disputed fact because according to learned counsel for the petitioner, she is residing in old house of the petitioner-husband. The respondent Indu Rani, who is present in person, however, submits that presently she is residing in her parental house. Any how, for the present, no accommodation is hired by the petitioner for being occupied by the respondent, therefore, a direction to petitionerhusband to take on rent accommodation at Village Ustehar or nearby vicinity, would serve the ends of justice. The petitioner-husband, as such, is directed to hire accommodation for being occupied by the respondent either at Village Ustehar or nearby vicinity within two weeks from today and handover the possession thereof to her. The affidavit in compliance be filed on the next date when both parties shall also remain present in person. List on 6th October, 2017." 9. Irrespective of the agreement, Annexure P14 and the receipts Annexure P-15 to Annexure P-18 to this petition produced by the petitioner-husband to show that accommodation, consequent upon the order, Annexure P-1 was hired in the house of one Desh Raj at village and post office Banoori, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., a direction was issued to him to hire accommodation for her either at village Ustehar or in the nearby vicinity within two weeks from that day. Any how, accommodation could not be hired and on the next date i.e., 13.09.2017, an application registered as Cr.M.P No. 1090 of 2017 came to be filed for seeking extension of time. The application was allowed and four weeks time was extended for the purpose. At the same time, the opportunity was given to respondent-wife also to search suitable accommodation of her choice in that area and inform her husband so that rent etc. could be settled. The application was allowed and four weeks time was extended for the purpose. At the same time, the opportunity was given to respondent-wife also to search suitable accommodation of her choice in that area and inform her husband so that rent etc. could be settled. This order reads as follows:- Cr.MP No. 1090/2017 "The application for the reasons stated therein is allowed. Consequently, the time for hiring accommodation either at village Ustehar or nearby vicinity by the petitioner/husband for respondent/wife is extended by four weeks further. The respondent/wife, if so advised, may also search for suitable accommodation for her in the abovesaid area and inform her husband in this regard so that rent etc. could be settled. List on 1st November, 2017. The affidavit in compliance be filed on the date fixed. The application is accordingly disposed of." 10. The matter then came to be listed before this Court on 1st November, 2017. On that day, affidavit in compliance was filed by the petitionerhusband stating therein that he had taken on rent the accommodation for the respondent at village Ustehar in the house of Suresh Kumar. Since the complaint of respondent-wife was that said Suresh Kumar was not handing over keys to her, therefore, the petitioner was directed to produce the landlord Suresh Kumar in this Court. The order passed on that day, reads as follows:- "Affidavit in compliance of the previous orders, stands filed. The same reveals that the petitioner-husband has hired two rooms accommodation from one Suresh Kumar of Village Ustehar. The rent agreement is annexed with the affidavit. The respondent-wife, who is present in person, submits that the landlord has refused to hand-over the possession of such accommodation to her. She further states that as per his version the petitioner-husband has taken the same for being required by him till he completes his own construction work. Also that it is not possible for him to rent-out the said accommodation for her residential purposes. In such a situation, there shall be a direction to the petitioner-husband to produce aforesaid Suresh Kumar, the owner of the said accommodation, on the next date. List on 24th November, 2017." 11. The matter was again taken up for consideration on 1st December, 2017. In such a situation, there shall be a direction to the petitioner-husband to produce aforesaid Suresh Kumar, the owner of the said accommodation, on the next date. List on 24th November, 2017." 11. The matter was again taken up for consideration on 1st December, 2017. Taking into consideration the allegations and counter-allegations qua hiring of accommodation at Village Ustehar, as directed by this Court, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Kangra at Dharamshala was directed to visit village Ustehar and inspect the rented accommodation in the building of Suresh Kumar in the presence of the parties and that of Suresh Kumar and sort out as to whether the accommodation so hired is suitable for residential purpose by the respondent or not. Also that, whether Suresh Kumar is willing to hand over the possession thereof to the respondent or not. This order also reads as follows:- "Parties are present in person. Shri Suresh Kumar in whose house at village Ustehar, Tehsl Baijnath, District Kangra the petitioner had hired the accommodation on rent for his wife, the respondent herein is not present. Learned Counsel on instructions submits that he is not willing to get himself involved in any legal process and that in case the accommodation hired from him is required, he is still ready and willing to put the respondent in possession thereof. It is seen that vide order Annexure P-1 dated 3.10.2007 passed in a complaint under Sections 12, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, learned Judicial Magistrate has directed the petitionerhusband to provide rent free suitable accommodation to the respondent-wife either at Ustehar or in the vicinity where she intend to reside. On 24.8.2017 following order was passed and the petitioner-husband directed to hire accommodation at village Ustehar or in nearby vicinity for the respondent: "On having heard this matter for some time and going through the record, prima facie the respondent is not residing in rented accommodation hired by her husband, the petitioner herein, consequent upon the judgment, Annexure P-1, in complaint under Sections 12, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. and affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide judgment Annexure P-2. Although on the strength of the agreement, Annexure P-14 and the rent receipts Ext.P-15 to Ext.P-18, learned counsel representing the petitioner-husband, has argued that consequent upon the judgment Annexure P1 1, the accommodation was hired through one Desh Raj of Village and Post Office Banuri, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, for being occupied by the respondent, however, in view of the submissions that she did not occupy the same, the fact remains that the respondents is not residing in any rented accommodation. Whether respondent is residing in the old house of the petitioner-husband, is again a disputed fact because according to learned counsel for the petitioner, she is residing in old house of the petitioner-husband. The respondent Indu Rani, who is present in person, however, submits that presently she is residing in her parental house. Any how, for the present, no accommodation is hired by the petitioner for being occupied by the respondent, therefore, a direction to petitionerhusband to take on rent accommodation at Village Ustehar or nearby vicinity, would serve the ends of justice. The petitioner-husband, as such, is directed to hire accommodation for being occupied by the respondent either at Village Ustehar or nearby vicinity within two weeks from today and handover the possession thereof to her. The affidavit in compliance be filed on the next date when both parties shall also remain present in person. List on 6th October, 2017." 2. While granting extension in his favour vide order 13.9.2017 passed in Cr.MP No. 1090 of 2017 for hiring such accommodation the liberty was also granted to the respondent-wife to search suitable accommodation for her residential purposes in village Ustehar or nearby vicinity. The order passed on that day read as follows: "Cr.MP No. 1090 of 2017 The application for the reasons stated therein is allowed. Consequently, the time for hiring accommodation either at village Ustehar or nearby vicinity by the petitioner/husband for respondent/wife is extended by four weeks further. The respondent/wife, if so advised, may also search for suitable accommodation for her in the abovesaid area and inform her husband in this regard so that rent etc. could be settled. List on 1st November, 2017. The affidavit in compliance be filed on the date fixed. The application is accordingly disposed of." 3. The respondent/wife, if so advised, may also search for suitable accommodation for her in the abovesaid area and inform her husband in this regard so that rent etc. could be settled. List on 1st November, 2017. The affidavit in compliance be filed on the date fixed. The application is accordingly disposed of." 3. Consequently, this Court was informed on the next date i.e. 1.11.2017 that suitable accommodation has been hired on rent for being occupied by the respondent as her residence in the house of one Suresh Kumar at Ustehar. She, however, informed that said Suresh Kumar refused to hand over the possession of the said accommodation to her at the pretext that he has agreed to rent out the premises to the petitioner-husband and it is not possible for him to rent out the said accommodation for her residential purposes. This order also reads as follow: "Affidavit in compliance of the previous orders, stands filed. The same reveals that the petitionerhusband has hired two rooms accommodation from one Suresh Kumar of Village Ustehar. The rent agreement is annexed with the affidavit. The respondent-wife, who is present in person, submits that the landlord has refused to handover the possession of such accommodation to her. She further states that as per his version the petitioner-husband has taken the same for being required by him till he completes his own construction work. Also that it is not possible for him to rent-out the said accommodation for her residential purposes. In such a situation, there shall be a direction to the petitioner-husband to produce aforesaid Suresh Kumar, the owner of the said accommodation, on the next date. List on 24th November, 2017." 4. As pointed out at the outset, the petitioner expressed his inability to produce Suresh Kumar aforesaid in this Court. If need so arise, the Court may resort to coercive steps to ensure his appearance. List on 24th November, 2017." 4. As pointed out at the outset, the petitioner expressed his inability to produce Suresh Kumar aforesaid in this Court. If need so arise, the Court may resort to coercive steps to ensure his appearance. Anyhow, at this stage it is deemed appropriate that the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Kangra at Dharamshala shall visit village Ustehar on second Saturday i.e. 9th December, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. in the presence of the parties and aforesaid Suresh Kumar and sort out the controversy as to whether the accommodation hired by the petitioner for respondent in the house of Suresh Kumar aforesaid is suitable for residential purposes by the respondent and also that said Suresh Kumar is willing to hand over the possession thereof to the respondent or not. If not, the reasons therefor. Learned Secretary, if so required, may also record the statement of said Suresh Kumar. In the event of the accommodation is found suitable and the owner is ready and willing to rent out the same to the petitioner for being provided residential accommodation to the respondent, learned Secretary shall ensure that the possession thereof is delivered to the respondent. The petitioner shall pay the Secretary a sum of Rs.10, 000/- to defray the expenses likely to be incurred upon by her towards transportation and other miscellaneous charges. 5. List on 28th December, 2017. The report in compliance by the Secretary be sent to the Registry of this Court well before the date fixed. 6. Before parting, it is directed that the petitioner-husband shall pay ''3000/- to the respondent to meet out the expenses she incurred upon to attend this Court on the previous date and today also. 7. An authenticated copy of this order be supplied to learned Counsel on both sides for compliance." 12. Now the Secretary District Legal Services Authority, Kangra at Dharamshala has submitted the report. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows: "On dt. 10.02.2018, at about 12.00 noon, I visited the house of Suresh Kumar and all the persons referred above were also present there. They apprised about the order dt. 01.12.2017 passed by Hon''ble High Court of H.P. in Cr.MMO No. 157 of 2015. The original rent agreement dt. 29.09.2017 executed between Sh. Suresh Kumar and Sh. Raj Kumar was produced before me (copy enclosed as XA) . They apprised about the order dt. 01.12.2017 passed by Hon''ble High Court of H.P. in Cr.MMO No. 157 of 2015. The original rent agreement dt. 29.09.2017 executed between Sh. Suresh Kumar and Sh. Raj Kumar was produced before me (copy enclosed as XA) . I perused the same and then inspected the accommodation hired by Sh. Raj Kumar for his wife Smt. Indu Ran. It comprises of two rooms which are spacious, one kitchen and one bathroom cum toilet (photographs of accommodation enclosed) . The electricity and water supply was also checked and found to be in order. The aforesaid accommodation is on the first floor. Sh. Suresh Kumar is working in District Mandi and his children are studying outside. After inspecting the accommodation, I found it to be suitable for residential purpose of Smt. Indu Rani. Thereafter, I asked Sh. Suresh Kumar as to whether he was willing to hand over the possession of accommodation referred above to Smt. Indu Rani to which he replied in affirmative. The statement of Sh. Suresh Kumar was recorded separately. After Sh. Suresh Kumar expressed his willingness to hand over the possession thereof, I handed over the possession of aforesaid accommodation (keys were given) to Smt. Indu Rani in presence of Sh. Suresh Kumar, Sh. Raj Kumar and Smt. Kanta Devi. The statements of aforesaid persons were recorded to this effect and photographs were also taken (all original statements and photographs enclosed) . I also received an amount of Rs. 10, 000/- from Sh. Raj Kumar and issued receipt in his favour .." 13. It is, therefore, apparent from the report that the rented accommodation now hired by the petitioner in the building of Suresh Kumar is suitable for being used as residence by the respondent and the owner said Suresh Kumar handed over the possession of the accommodation to the respondent by giving her keys thereof. The report of learned Secretary is supported by the statement of Raj Kumar (petitioner) Smt. Indu Rani (respondent) and that of Suresh Kumar, owner of the building. The rent agreement is also annexed to the report. The respondent in her statement recorded by the Secretary Legal Services Authority Kangra at Dharamshala has admitted the accommodation taken on rent by her husband, the petitioner for her, the execution of the rent agreement and also that possession of accommodation so taken on rent was handed over to her. The rent agreement is also annexed to the report. The respondent in her statement recorded by the Secretary Legal Services Authority Kangra at Dharamshala has admitted the accommodation taken on rent by her husband, the petitioner for her, the execution of the rent agreement and also that possession of accommodation so taken on rent was handed over to her. However, according to her, she is not interested to reside in the accommodation so hired. 14. It is in this backdrop, parties on both sides have been heard at length. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent-wife has pointed out during the course of arguments that she being the wife of a Class-I Gazetted Officer, the petitioner is not expected to live in a two rooms rented accommodation. On analyzing the rival submissions and also the material available on record and the orders passed by this Court in this petition from time to time, the order Annexure P-1 passed by learned trial Court and affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) , Kangra at Dharamshala vide judgment, Annexure P-2 and by this Court vide judgment, Annexure P-4, the respondent-wife has to be provided suitable accommodation at village Ustehar or in the nearby vicinity of her choice, of course subject to vacation of old house of the petitioner-husband occupied by her. The documents Annexure P-14 to Annexure P18 reveal that the earlier accommodation for her residential purpose was hired in the house of one Desh Raj at village Banoori, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. The said accommodation was not occupied by her. In the meantime, she filed an application, copy whereof is Annexure P-5 for implementation of order, Annexure P-1. Learned trial Magistrate has dismissed the application for the reasons as already detailed in para supra. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while exercising the revisional jurisdiction has, however, quashed the order, Annexure P-8 passed by learned Magistrate. The revisional Authority wants learned trial Court to decide the application filed for implementation of order, Annexure P-1 summarily by treating the same criminal proceedings. True it is that Section 31 provides that in the event of breach of protection order, it will be an offence under the Act and punishable with imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand, or with both. True it is that Section 31 provides that in the event of breach of protection order, it will be an offence under the Act and punishable with imprisonment of either description of a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand, or with both. An action brought to the Court to be tried by a Magistrate who has passed the protection order after framing the charge. However, in the present case, there is no breach of order of protection, Annexure P-1 at the instance of the petitionerhusband for the reason that the respondent has failed to bring on record any material suggesting that she had vacated the old house of the petitioner. On the other hand, a petition registered as Cr.MMO No. 4033 of 2013, she had preferred for seeking modification of the protection order, Annexure P-1 and the order passed by learned trial Court, Annexure P-2 reveals that she is not willing to vacate the old house of the petitioner. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, however, taking note of the situation that in the event of she is allowed to share the accommodation with the petitioner and the nature of allegations leveled against him as well as on going litigation between them, the atmosphere of the house is likely to be vitiated, has not inclined to the prayer for modification of order, Annexure P-1, she made and dismissed the petition vide judgment, Annexure P-4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order, Annexure P-10 has miserably failed to take note of such factual aspect. The Magistrate should have tried the application summarily as per the provisions contained under Section 31 of the Act, had there been any breach of protection order at the instance of the petitioner-husband. The impugned order, as such, is neither legally nor factually sustainable. 15. Now if coming to the suitability of the accommodation rented out by the petitioner in the house of one Suresh Kumar at village Ustehar, the report of the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, a Judge in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge amply demonstrates that the same is suitable for residential purpose of the respondent. Not only this, as per report and also the own statement of respondent, the possession of such accommodation has been delivered to her. Not only this, as per report and also the own statement of respondent, the possession of such accommodation has been delivered to her. In her statement recorded by learned Secretary, Legal Services Authority, she has not uttered even a single word qua the suitability of the accommodation so taken on rent by her husband, the petitioner but according to her, she is not desirous of residing there. It is best known to her as to why she did not want to occupy and reside in that accommodation. It is significant to note that this Court had allowed her to search suitable accommodation for her in village Ustehar or nearby vicinity as find recorded in the order dated 13.09.2017 reproduced supra. She, however, has not responded to this order also. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner-husband. The possession of the rented out accommodation is lying with her, if so advised she starts residing there and the rent will be paid by the petitioner. True it is that the matter qua arranging her to live in the shared accommodation is pending disposal in the Hon''ble Apex Court, however, pending decision of the same, the petitioner while complying with the order, Annexure P-1 has taken on rent the accommodation in the house of one Suresh Kumar at village Ustehar and the petitioner is free to start residing in the said accommodation. On being persuaded by this Court, the petitioner-husband even is ready and willing today also to pay the rent of the accommodation of her own choice if hired by her at village Ustehar or in the nearby vicinity. Therefore, this option is also available to her. However, so far as the impugned order is concerned, as already pointed out, the same is neither legally nor factually sustainable hence quashed and set aside. 16. Consequently, this petition succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Pending application(s) , if any, shall also stand disposed of.