IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Sandeep Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
Indu Gupta - Respondent
Cr. MMO No. 248 of 2014
Decided on : 21.05.2015
Domestic Violence - Right to Residence - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 19
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the order directing him to provide a room in the shared household for the respondent, his legally wedded wife, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife had a right of residence in the shared household, and the petitioner's offer to provide separate accommodation was not sufficient. The court also held that the house, despite being owned by the petitioner's mother, qualified as a shared household under the Act.
Issues: The main issues were the petitioner's obligation to provide a shared household for the respondent and the interpretation of 'shared household' under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and emphasized the wife's right to residence in the shared household, irrespective of the property's ownership.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, upholding the orders to provide a room in the shared household for the respondent.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, on 21.10.2014 whereby he affirmed the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, directing the petitioner to provide one room to the aggrieved person in the newly constructed shared household for residence purpose.
2. The matrimonial relationship interse parties is not denied. The learned Courts below have concurrently found the respondent to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The marriage between the parties had been solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 04.11.2007 and out of this wedlock a son was born to them. On the application of the wife, the respondent was directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of 4,000/- to her and their minor child and provide one room in the shared household.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that instead of petitioner being compelled to provide the respondent with the shared household, he is ready to hire a separate accommodation for the respondent and their child and, therefore, the orders of the Courts below to provide a shared household be quashed and set aside. He further argued that once the accommodation belongs to his mother, the same cannot be said to be a shared household and, therefore, the respondent has no right to claim residence in such premises. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
4. Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the ‘Act’) reads thus:-
“19. Residence Orders.-(1) While disposing of an application under subsection
(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 relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides;
(d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared household or encumbering the same;
(e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or
(f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require: Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman.
(2) The Magistrate may impose any additional conditions or pass any other direction which he may deem reasonably necessary to protect or to provide for the safety of the aggrieved person or any child of such aggrieved person.
(3) The Magistrate may require from the respondent to execute a bond with or without sureties, for preventing the commission of domestic violence.
(4) An order under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be an order under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and shall be dealt with accordingly.
(5) While passing an order under sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the Court may also pass an order directing the officer in-charge of the nearest police station to give protection to the aggrieved person or to assist her or the person making an application on her behalf in the implementation of the order.
(6) While making an order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may impose on the respondent obligations relating to the discharge of rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties.
(7) The Magistrate may direct the officer in-charge of the police station in whose juris
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.