SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

CRL.M.C. 1868/2016 & Crl.M.A.35881/2018 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 12 Contempt of Courts Act)

CRL.REV.P. 345/2016 & Crl.M.A.7580/2016 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 12 Contempt of Courts Act)

1. Both these petitions are between Mrs. Santosh Mahajan the Mother-in-Law and Mrs. Shachi Mahajan the Daughter-in-Law. Crl.Rev.P. 345/2016 has been filed by the Mother-in-Law, impugning order dated 25.04.2016, whereby, directions were issued to the Mother-in-Law to handover one set of keys to the Daughter-in-Law in pursuance to the protection order of residence dated 07.11.2012 granted to her in respect of Property No. D-113, Anand Vihar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the subject Property).

2. Crl.M.C.1860/2016 has been filed by the Daughter-in-Law, impugning order dated 02.04.2016 of the Metropolitan Magistrate the Magistrate did not direct registration of an FIR against the Mother-in-Law and further direction is sought for initiating proceedings under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Domestic Violence Act) for violating the protection order of residence.

3. The Daughter-in-Law was married with the son of Smt. Santosh Mahajan on 01.03.2008. After the marriage, they resided at Property No. D-113, Anand Vihar, Delhi. On 21.10.2012, the husband of Shachi Mahajan left her matrimonial house without informing anyone. It is alleged by the Daughter-in-Law that he had left the house with a view to unlawfully expel her from her matrimonial home.

4. Mother-in-Law is alleged to have instructed the Daughter-in-Law to leave the matrimonial home. Mother-in-Law is alleged to have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Daughter-in-Law.

5. On a petition filed by the Daughter-in-Law, protection order was passed on 07.11.2012, restraining the Mother-in-Law from dispossessing her from the shared household.

6. Order dated 07.11.2012 was challenged by the Mother-in-Law by filing Crl.M.C. 418/2013. However, by order dated 08.04.2015, said petition was dismissed on the ground that a disputed question of fact arose as to whether the property was a shared household or not and the Mother-in-Law was permitted to raise all issues before the trial court.

7. Subsequently as the electricity bill was not paid, electricity supply to the said property was disconnected in May, 2015. It is alleged that as the electricity was disconnected, the Daughter-in-Law was constrained to shift to her mother’s house.

8. When the Daughter-in-Law got an order for restoration of the electricity, she could not enter the premises as the locks of the premises had been changed by the Mother-in-Law. A complaint under section 31 was filed against the Mother-in-law. Mother-in-Law filed an application under Section 25 of the Domestic Violence Act, seeking modification of the protection order dated 07.11.2012.

9. By impugned order dated 02.04.2016, the Metropolitan Magistrate directed the Mother-in-Law to hand over the keys of the shared household to the Daughter-in-Law.

10. It is alleged by the Daughter-in-Law that the aforesaid order was not complied with.

11. Mother-in-Law filed a petition before the High Court (Crl.M.C.1643/2016) impugning order dated 02.04.2016, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a revision petition and consequently, the subject Crl.Rev.P. 345/2016 has been filed.

12. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Daughter-in-Law that the order, granting rights of residence, i.e., 07.11.2012, has been upheld by this Court and, accordingly, the Mother-in-Law cannot now impugn the same by challenging a consequential order of handing over of the keys of the premises to the Daughter-in-Law. Further, it is contended that since the Mother-in-Law is in breach of the orders of the Court and has not complied with the orders of the Court to handover possession of the subject premises, she is liable to be prosecuted.

13. Per contra, learned