The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a widow to accommodation and maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the legal duty of the family members to maintain and provide residence to the widow.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

This criminal revision under sections 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2013, whereby he set-aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chamba on an application moved by the respondent under section 12 read with sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005) (for short, the Act) and directed the petitioners to provide accommodation to the respondent and till then to pay Rs.2,000/- to the respondent from the date of filing of the complaint.

2. The allegation set out by the respondent in the complaint was that her marriage had been solemnized with Doli Ram in the year 1988 as per Hindu rites and customs and one girl was born out of the said wedlock. Doli Ram died in the year 1993 and thereafter the respondent alongwith her minor child was staying in the matrimonial home, which was in her possession prior to the death of her husband. Further allegations were that after the death of her husband, his family members, who were petitioners herein started maltreating, misbehaving and abusing her with a view to compel her to leave the room and kitchen which were in her possession and thereafter about two years back, she had been thrown out of the house.

3. The petitioners filed their reply taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, estoppel and that the respondent has suppressed material facts. On merits, it was averred that after the death of her husband, the respondent started residing at her parents house alongwith her daughter and did not reside in the matrimonial home.

4. The parties led evidence and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 24.8.2013 dismissed the application on the ground that it was very unlikely that respondent was residing in the same house after the death of her husband and therefore, her remedy lies before the civil court and no case of domestic violence was made out.

5. Against the aforesaid judgment, the respondent preferred an appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, who vide his order dated 30.6.2014 allowed the appeal and held the respondent to be entitled to a shared accommodation consisting of one room, one kitchen and one bath room with all ancillary facilities in the house, which was in possession of the petitioners and till such accommodation is not made available to the respondent, she was held entitled to a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/-.

6. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge has been assailed before this court on the ground that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is based on surmises and conjectures without taking into consideration that respondent had during the life time of her husband filed a divorce petition in the year 1993 and it was during the pendency of that petition that her husband died. Therefore, it was not a case to which the provisions of the Act would apply.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that a wife is entitled to accommodation only in the house, which is joint family property, while in the present case the house was owned by her father-inlaw and was his separate property in which shared accommodation could not have been granted. It was further claimed that respondent- petitioner No. 1 is 80 years old man having no source of income and is unable to pay such huge amount of maintenance.

8. In response thereto the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and has claimed that respondent is a total destitute and it is not only moral duty but a legal obligation of the family members of the petitioners to maintain and provide residence to the respondent. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.

9. The learned Sessions Judge in support of his conclusion that the respondent is entitled to a shar