Point of Law: Domestic violence- Trial Court shall before passing a decree and dispossession on the wife ensuring in view of the subsisting rights of the daughter-in-law under the DV Act to provide with an additional accommodation as per Section 19(1)(f) of the Act.

ORDER :

1. This revision petition has been filed against the order in C.M.P.437 of 2020 in M.C.22/20 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Thiruvananthapuram, which has been confirmed in the judgment in Crl.A.33/21 dated 3.8.21 of the Additional District and Sessions Court, VI, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. M.C.No.22/20 has been filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short the Act) against respondents 2 to 5. The 2nd respondent is the husband of the revision petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 are the father, mother and brother respectively of the second respondent. M.C.22/2020 has been filed under section 12 of the Act claiming reliefs under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act.

3. Interim order under section 23 of the Act was granted in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents from evicting the petitioner from the shared household until further orders and also restraining them from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner. The second respondent, the husband of the petitioner filed C.M.P.437/20 to alter or modify the interim order. The second respondent expressed his willingness to provide equivalent alternate accommodation to the petitioner. That petition was considered along with other CMPs. Since the facts in other CMPs are not relevant for the disposal of this revision petition, I am not going into those aspects. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order vacating the residence order granted to the petitioner and directing to vacate her from the shared house within one month. The 2nd respondent was also directed to provide equivalent alternative accommodation suitable to the petitioner or in lieu to provide Rs.8000/-per month as rent.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order vacating the residence order passed in favour of the petitioner is bad for reasons more than one. (i). the Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Court went wrong in applying the principles in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021 (1) SCC 414 = 2020 (5) KHC 496) to the case in hand since the person who moved the petition for modification of the residence order is the husband and not the father in law as in Satish Chander Ahuja's case (2) there is no change of circumstance so as to invoke Section 25(2) of the Act.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would contend that the principles laid down in Satish Chander Ahuja's case is squarely applicable to the fact situation of this case and the learned Magistrate and also the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed a balanced order and no interference is called for by this Court while exercising the limited jurisdiction under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. It is also his contention that the respondents are apprehending false allegation and cases at the instance of the petitioner and it would be dangerous for them to stay with the petitioner in the house and hence they have occupied a separate rented house. It is also contended that the 4th respondent/brother of 2nd respondent is a bachelor and if some unnecessary allegations are raised by the petitioner against him it would tarnish the name and image of the family and hence according to the learned counsel, they are afraid of staying with the petitioner in the house and hence they have started residing in a rented premises.

6. On going through the order passed by the Magistrate as well as that of the Additional Sessions Court, it appears that they were taken away by the contention of apprehension of false accusation at the hands of the petitioner while residing together. Petitioner also had filed C.M.P.No.431/2020 for a direction to respondents 2 to 5 to reside in “Rohini, MRA B 21, Mukkola”. That relief was not considered finding that the act does not provide with any power upon the Magistrate to give a direction to the respondents to stay with the petitioner and the power of the Magistrate is only to give protection o