JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The petitioner, who is the father-in-law of opposite party No. 2 has challenged the order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Patna in Cr. Appeal No. 87 of 2017 whereby the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-X, Patna dated 28.04.2017 in Domestic Violence Case No. 93 of 2015, directing the petitioner to provide a separate room to the opposite party No. 2 along with her minor son in the same household situated at MIG, A.G. Colony, Sheikhpura, Ashiana Nagar, Patna and to pay her an amount of Rs. 5000/- per month towards maintenance from the month of April, 2017, has been affirmed and upheld.

3. The opposite party No. 2 was married to one of the sons of the petitioner on 28.11.2005, whereafter she went to her matrimonial household at Shastri Nagar, Patna and lived there for few days. She then went to New Delhi along with her husband, who at the relevant time, was working as an Engineer in a private company. The opposite party No. 2 thereafter became pregnant in the year 2009 and had to come back to her matrimonial home for sometime and thereafter went to her father's house for the purposes of delivering her child. In the meantime, the husband of the opposite party No. 2 became ill and had to be taken to Vellore. He was diagnosed of being HIV positive and he ultimately died on 29.06.2010 at P.M.C.H., Patna. The opposite party No. 2 thereafter delivered a male child on 16.07.2010. It is the case of opposite party No. 2 that ever since the death of her husband, she was neglected and in fact the petitioner (father-in-law) obtained the keys of her Delhi house and took away all her and her husband's belongings including passbooks and passports. The opposite party No. 2 also, while cohabiting with her husband, got infected with HIV and had to undergo prolonged medical treatment. Over the period of years, the son of opposite party No. 2 has grown up and is presently going to school. The request of the opposite party No. 2 to allow her to stay in the same household was refused and she was ousted from the house.

4. The opposite party No. 2 has therefore alleged that since the petitioner has constructed a three storied building after selling of the ancestral property and is getting a monthly rental of Rs. 60,000/- by letting out portions of the aforesaid building, the opposite party No. 2 also has a right to be maintained and of residing in the said household. A complaint was lodged by her under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act which was numbered as Domestic Violence Case No. 93 of 2015.

5. The stand of the petitioner before the court below was that the complaint was filed because of evil motive and no domestic violence had been perpetrated upon opposite party No. 2. After the death of the husband of opposite party No. 2, she was being paid Rs. 3000/- by the petitioner till April, 2011. Prior to the death of the husband of opposite party No. 2, the ancestral property in the village was sold and the proceeds was distributed amongst the two sons of the petitioner. An amount of Rs. 10,57,200/- was deposited in the joint account of opposite party No. 2 and her husband. The petitioner denied that any personal belonging of the opposite party No. 2 was taken away from her Delhi residence and the rented accommodation had to be vacated because of the insistence of the landlord. The petitioner in the capacity of father-in-law of opposite party No. 2 had to go to Delhi to bring back the Car and the Motorcycle which was lying in the rented house at Delhi. The petitioner has specifically denied that any personal belonging of opposite party No. 2 in the shape of ornaments, passbooks and passports etc. were ever taken away by him. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner is aged about 70 years and has to look after his old wife who is fighting Cancer. Since the entire share of the ancestral prope