The respondent cannot claim protection or right of residence under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act if the property does not qualify as a 'shared household' as per the Act.

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The learned 25th Judicial Magistrate First Class (Special Court, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act), Nagpur passed an order dated 17/12/2015, directing the M.S.E.D.C.L. to provide new connection of electricity to the applicant, who is the respondent No.1 in this petition, within a period of 15 days from the date of order of payment of prescribed fees as per Rules. Being aggrieved by the said order the appellant has challenged the same in Criminal Appeal No.19/2016. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 13/05/2016 has dismissed the same. Hence, this Petition.

3. Shri P.S. Sahare, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent complainant is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur was not justified in maintaining the order of the learned JMFC to provide the electricity connection to respondent No. 1 without notice to the petitioner, who is the owner of the premises. The order is therefore liable to be set aside. It is also urged by him that without obtaining no objection from the owner of the house, the Court could not have directed to provide electricity connection to respondent No. 1.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. It is not disputed that the order passed by the trial Court directing to provide electricity connection by installing a separate meter in the premises of respondent No.1, has been complied with. There is no provision brought to the notice of this Court requiring obtaining of “no objection” from the owner of the house by the occupant. In view of this, the question of hearing the petitioner before passing such order does not arise. It is for respondent No.1 to pay electricity charges in respect of such meter, which is installed. The M.S.E.D.C.L shall be at liberty to disconnect the supply, if there is a failure to pay regularly the amount of bill, in accordance with law. I do not find any fault with the view taken by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court, in issuing such direction.

5. Shri P.S. Sahare, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the fact that during the pendency of this petition, the respondent No.1 who is the daughter in law of the petitioner and being quarrelsome in nature, creates the scene on the spot. The complaint was made of such incident and the police authorities have registered the case of non-cognizable offence under Sections 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code on 10/10/2017 and the parties are left at liberty to adopt appropriate course of action for redressal of grievance.

6. The petitioner is a Senior Citizen and the property where respondent No.1 resides, is owned by him. Shri Sahare, invited my attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.R. Batra and another v/s Taruna Batra (Smt) reported in (2007) 3 SCC 169 in which it is held that the house which exclusively belongs to mother-in-law of the woman, wherein she only lived with her husband for some time in the past after her marriage, cannot be a “shared household” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the Domestic Violence Act”) and hence the aggrieved woman shall not be entitled to claim her right to live therein under Section 17(1) of the Domestic Violence Act.

7. In the present case, the husband of the respondent No.1 is neither residing in the house occupied by the respondent No.1 nor in the house occupied by the petitioner. In view of the aforestated decision of the Apex Court, even if the respondent No.1 was residing in the house in question for some time with her husband, it cannot be her “shared household”. The husband of the respondent No.1 is prepared to make separate arrangement for the residence of the respondent No.1, who seems to be adament and not prep