IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Relative within the meaning of proviso to Section 2(q) cannot be only a male relative and the relative referred to in proviso to clause (q) of Section 2 can also be a female relative of the husband of the male partner, as the case may be.
(2) House owned by mother-in-law of applicant could not be treated as shared household so as to entitle the applicant to claim order of residence

ORDER

A.S. Oka, J.— The revision applicant is an applicant in an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). In the said application, the applicant had impleaded six opponents. The first opponent Hemant is the husband of the applicant. The applicant married to said Hemant on 9th May 1986. The second opponent in the said application is the brother-in-law of the revision applicant. The fourth opponent is the wife of the second opponent. The third opponent is the mother-in-law of the revision applicant. The third opponent in the said application has been impleaded as the first respondent in this revision application. The fifth opponent in the said application under Section 12 of the said Act is the sister-in-law of the revision applicant. The sixth opponent in the application is the husband of the fifth opponent.

2. According to the case made out by the revision applicant, she was residing along with her husband and her in-laws in the house by the name Jagan Villa at Nani-Daman. According to the case of the revision applicant; on 22nd June 2004 in the afternoon, she was assaulted and thrown out of the said house by her husband. It is alleged that the revision applicant was working as a teacher and while she was staying with her husband her entire salary was being taken by her husband and in-laws and therefore she has no savings. In the application, she has referred to the criminal complaint filed by her as well as a petition for divorce filed by her husband against her. By filing the said application under Section 12 of the said Act, she claimed maintenance from her husband. She also claimed house accommodation or share of her husband in her father-in-law’s two bungalows by the name Jagan Villa and Mani Villa at Nani Daman. In the said application under Section 12 of the said Act, the revision applicant applied for interim order under Section 23 of the said Act. The said application was opposed by the opponents to the said application. A reply was filed by the opponents to the said application for contesting the said application. The allegations made by the revision applicant were denied in the said reply. It was contended that proceedings against the said Act can be initiated only against the male persons and therefore, the proceedings as against the opponent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 was not maintainable. It was contended that the opponent No.1 husband has no title to the houses in respect of which reliefs were claimed. It is contended that the opponent No.1 was residing in the house of his mother. i.e. the first respondent herein and therefore the house in respect of which relief was sought by the revision applicant cannot be termed as a shared household. The learned Magistrate by order dated 5th March, 2008 granted interim relief directing the husband of the revision applicant to allow the residence of the applicant with him in house 14/113/C (hereinafter referred to as the said house). The learned Magistrate directed the opponent No.2 Manoj and his sister Varsha not to create any panic in any form of harassment to the applicant. The husband was directed to observe and follow the order. The officer-in-charge of Nani Daman police station was directed to make available one male and one female constable to the applicant as per her demand for her protection. The protection officer was directed to assist the revision applicant for enforcement of the order.

3. The first respondent (mother-in-law of the revision applicant) preferred an appeal for challenging the said order. The main contention in the appeal was that the first respondent purchased two plots at Narayan Park, Nani Daman under a sale deed dated 5th February 1998 and thereafter, she had constructed the said house bearing No.14/113/C (Jagan Villa). The case is that the said house is exclusively owned by her.

4. By judgment and order dated 2nd September 2008, the appeal was allowed by setting as