The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, particularly in addressing allegations of domestic violence, providing alternative accommodation, and protecting the rights of women and children.

JUDGMENT

Yogesh Khanna, J. - The petition challenges an order dated 13.01.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.232/2019 by the learned Additional Session''s Court, Saket, New Delhi.

2. The petitioner and respondent were married on 07.06.2006. Two children were born from their wedlock, a daughter in the year 2009 and a son in the year 2011. The property in dispute is 299, Asiad Village Games Complex, New Delhi, jointly purchased in the year 2008. Both the parties are co-owners of the said property to an extent of 50% share each.

3. Allegations and counter-allegations are made by either parties.

4. The petitioner alleges a) the respondent is in extra marital affair with one Ms.Ruchika Dua, a blatant cause for matrimonial dispute/domestic violence; b) the petitioner herein made her first complaint dated 24.05.2017 at PS Hauz Khas alleging infidelity of respondent and fear for her life. She has attached MLC of Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Hospital dated 24.05.2017 showing a soft tissue injury to her allegedly caused by her husband/respondent herein; c) subsequently a complaint under Section 12 read with Sections 17 to 23 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (herein after referred to as "DV Act") was filed before the learned Magistrate, Saket Court, Delhi; and d) On 06.06.2019 the learned Magistrate while noting several allegations in its order dated 24.04.2019, appointed a Protection Officer who files a report dated 21.05.2019 noting, interalia, alleged repetition of acts of violence upon the petitioner and her children. Such incidents are detailed in paras 4 to 8 of an early hearing application which was disposed of vide order dated 06.06.2019 wherein the learned Magistrate notes:-

"15. It may be prudent to note that immediately after cameras were installed in the house on the 17th morning, the complaints filed thereafter refer to alleged thefts from the car and not from the house." The respondent has alleged that the complainant has been harassing him and has unnecessarily dragged their children in the court case(s) and the complaints made by the complainant are all false. It is pleaded on behalf of the respondent that some more time be granted to the respondent to file his reply and put forth his defense to the main petition under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The respondent is residing together with the complainant and the children in the same shared household. The complainant has already filed an application under Section 31 of the D.V. Act for alleged breach of the interim protection orders dated 24.04.2019 and 27.04.2019, which is already listed for pre-summoning evidence. The interim protection order had already been passed by the court in favour of the complainant and despite which she has alleged that the respondent continued to harass her. What appears from the record is that the complainant is not at all feeling secure in the same house with the respondent, who is allegedly continuing to be violent and abusive. It, seems that if the respondent is permitted to continue to reside in the same shared household, his presence may instill fear in the minds of the children, who are of impressionable age. It can be traumatic for the children to live in fear of their father and for the complainant to be constantly on her toes for a lookout against any possible future alleged misbehavior by the respondent. The school of the children is closed for summer vacations, which would certainly mean more time for them to spend at home. At this stage, there appears to be an apparent animosity'' between the parties and it would be best for ah the parties to be given time to cool their minds and think clearly the best course of action for their children, who are caught amidst the litigation squabbles of the '' parties. No prejudice would he caused to the respondent, if he is directed to reside at some other place for the time being. Therefore, in the interest of the young children and for complainant''s sense of safety for hersel