V.K. JAIN, J.

1. This is a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the Order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 29th January, 2009, whereby he directed respondent No. 2, Shri Satish Chand Sharma, husband of the petitioner-Umesh Sharma to pay rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month to her for maintaining an alternative accommodation w.e.f. 7th February, 2009. The petitioner was directed to vacate the shared household within 15 days of receiving the first payment of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. A perusal of the Order dated 16th April, 2008, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, would show that the petitioner, Smt. Uma Sharma, filed an application u/s 12 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking restraint order against the respondents-Anirudh Sharma, who is her brother-in-law, Lalita Prasad Sharma, who is her father-in-law and Satish Chand Sharma, who is her husband, alleging torture and cruelty with her, besides demand of dowry and ill-treatment. She sought order restraining the respondents from dispossessing her or her son from shared flat bearing No. A-18-C, Second Floor, Janta Flats, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi.

3. The respondents contested the application, claiming that house No. A-18-C, Second Floor, Janta Flats, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi is owned by respondent No. 2 - Lalita Prasad Sharma. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate restrained the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the aforesaid house and from disturbing her possession in any manner. The Order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was, however, modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.R. Batra and Another Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169.

4. Though the petitioner claims that property No. A-18-C, Second Floor, Janta Flats, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi, in which she is presently residing, is owned by her husband, admittedly, the property stands in the name of her father-in-law, respondent No. 2, Lalita Prasad Sharma and not in the name of her husband-Satish Chand Sharma. No material has been placed by the petitioner on record from which it may be inferred that the consideration for purchase of the aforesaid flat was paid by her husband and not by her father-in-law. Since flat in question, admittedly, stands in the name of Respondent No. 2 - Lalita Prasad Sharma, the onus was upon the petitioner to prove that it was purchased from the funds of her husband-Satish Chand Sharma, in the name of his father Shri Lalita Prasad Sharma. Neither there is any document nor any other material on record to discharge the onus, which was placed upon the petitioner. It is a settled proposition of law, if a person claims that the property, standing in the name of another person, is owned by him and not by the person in whose name it stands, the onus is upon the person making such a claim to substantiate the plea taken by him. In Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and Others, (2008) 4 SCC 649, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:

It is well-settled that apparent state of affairs shall be taken as the real state of affairs. It is not for an owner of the property to establish that it is his self-acquired property and the onus would be on the one who pleads contra.

5. In the absence of the petitioner, discharging the onus, which the law places upon her, it cannot be accepted that the flat, in which she is residing, is owned by her husband and not by her father-in-law.

6. In S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra 2007 (2) SCC (Crl.) 56, the petitioner-wife had, for some time, lived with her husband in the house, owned by her mother-in-law. A learned Single Judge of this Court held that the premises, in which she had resided with her husband, was her matrimonial home and mere change of residence by the husband thereafter would not shift the matrimonial home. It was held by learned Single Judge of this Court that wife was entitled to continue t