Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2009, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur, whereby the learned Magistrate has not only directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent-wife, but has also directed him to provide an accommodation to the respondent-wife in the shared household. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 24.01.2009.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.11.2007, the respondent-wife, Smt. Rajnesh @ Manto, filed an application under Sections 19, 20, 21, 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act', for short) against the petitioner-husband and his family members wherein she claimed that she got married with the petitioner in the year 1996. But ever since her marriage, her in-laws' and husband have tortured her for dowry demands. She further claimed that due to the torture committed on her, she is living separately from the petitioner since 2005. Thus, she prayed for maintenance. The petitioner-husband filed reply to the application and denied the contents therein. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 24.1.2009, the learned trial court allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife and to provide her an accommodation in the shared household. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-husband filed an appeal before the appellate court. However, vide order dated 6.3.2010, the learned appellate court upheld the order dated 24.1.2009 and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. D.K. Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that Section 19 of the Act does not empower the court to restore the possession of portion of the shared household, once the respondent-wife has left the matrimonial home. Considering the fact that the respondent-wife had left the matrimonial home in the year 2005, the petitioner-husband cannot be directed to give her accommodation in the shared household by the learned Magistrate. Secondly, neither of the learned courts below have noticed the fact that the respondent-wife had left the matrimonial home in 2005, where as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 came into force on 26.10.2006. Relying on the case of Hema @ Hemlata (Smt.) & Anr. vs. Jitender & Anr. (2009 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 291), the learned counsel has contended that the Act cannot be given a retrospective application. Thirdly, the petitioner has already filed a divorce petition on the ground of desertion. Therefore, the impugned order should not be passed during the pendency of the divorce petition. Lastly, in accordance with Section 19(1)(f) of the Act, the petitioner is willing to provide an alternate accommodation or to pay rent for the same. Therefore, the learned Magistrate and the learned Judge should have directed the petitioner either to arrange for an alternate accommodation, or to pay rental amount for the same. However, the same has not been done by the learned courts below. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders.

5. Section 19 of the Act reads as under :

19. Residence orders.-

(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order -

(a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household;

(b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household;

(c) restraining the respondent or any of his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document