The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's right of residence against her in-laws was not justified, as she was residing separately with her husband and daughter in a rented accommodation and no longer in need of alternative accommodation.

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. 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 opposit