The main legal point established in the judgment is that specific allegations of harassment can entitle a party to interim protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the summoning of the accused should not be interfered with if no infirmity is found.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. - The petitioners vide the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India have assailed the impugned order and judgment dated 11.12.2018 in Crl. Revision No.458/2018 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC) District-South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi which upheld the summoning order dated 12.9.2018 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court)-02, South West, Dwarka in CC No. 26903/2018. The petitioners thus seek that the judgment dated 11.12.2018 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC) and the summoning order dated 12.9.2018 of the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court), South West, Dwarka be set aside.

2. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent and the respondent has been represented and submissions have been made on behalf of either side by their learned counsel.

3. The petitioners No.1 and 2 have professed through the petition and in the memo of parties that they, i.e., Dharma Rohilla and Sukh Devi are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the respondent Saroj W/o Ajit Kumar Rohella and that the petitioner No.3 is the younger son of the petitioners No. 1 and 2.

4. The petitioners No.1 and 2 submit that their elder son Ajit Kumar Rohella had been divorced from his first wife and lateron on 1.1.2015 he (Ajit Kumar Rohella) and the respondent started living as husband and wife, though no necessary ceremonies of marriage were performed at Chirag Delhi in a marriage function which was attended only by the petitioners though they were not ready for the same. It has been submitted further through the petition that the petitioners did not accept the marriage and that the petitioner No.2 is the owner of property bearing No. RZF-946, Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony, Near Heera Devi Model Public School, New Delhi-110077 and she had allowed her elder son, i.e., Ajit Kumar Rohella to live on the part of the second floor as rest of the floor was given on rent to the tenant. The petitioners submit that the petitioners No.1 and 2 reside on the first floor and the petitioner No.3 along with his wife and children is residing on the ground floor. The petitioners have placed on record the documents of title as Annexure P-2, i.e., inter alia a General Power of Attorney executed by one Samunder Singh S/o Deep Chand in favour of Dharma Rohilla, i.e., the petitioner No.1 herein in relation to the property i.e., at Khasra No. 50/18/2, situated at Raj Nagar Part- II, Palam Colony, area of Village Palam Delhi which he had stated that he had sold to Dharma Rohilla and that he had received a consideration from him. The affidavit stating the date of sale by Samunder Singh is 16.4.1985. There are other documents in relation to the transaction i.e. the Deed of Agreement between Samunder Singh and Dharma Rohilla. In relation to the said property also placed on record is a subsequent General Power of Attorney executed by Dharma Rohilla, i.e., the petitioner No.1 in favour of the petitioner No.2 executing the power of attorney in relation to the said property.

5. The petitioners have further submitted through the petition that Ajit Kumar Rohella, elder son of the petitioners No.1 and 2 expired on 8.4.2018 and thereafter the respondent started creating trouble and a notice was thus issued to her dated 9.5.2018 revoking the licence and calling upon her to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the part of the second floor but the respondent did not hand over the same, and thus a Civil suit was filed by the petitioner No.2 against the respondent which is pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, South-West, Dwarka Court which is a suit for possession and damages and mesne profits, and permanent and mandatory injunction. The prayers in the said suit are to the effect:

a) Pass a decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby, the defe