The judgment establishes the entitlement of aggrieved parties to interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the interpretation of 'shared household' under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

D. DASH, J

1. The petitioner by filing this revision has assailed the judgment dated 03.01.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri, in Crl.Appeal No. 31 of 2016 confirming the order dated 22.09.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri in 1 C.C. Case No. 87 of 2016 in the matter of an application under section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, called 'the PWDV Act') granting interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- to the opposite parties for being paid by these petitioners by the 7th day of each succeeding month as per the English Calendar with effect from the date of initiation of the proceeding i.e. from 19.02.2016,

2. The facts of the case necessary for the purpose of the present proceeding are as under:-

The opposite party No. 1 is the daughter-in-law of the petitioners and her husband, who was the only son of the petitioners and has passed away on 5.8.2010 after suffering from Cirrhosis of Liver. The opposite party No. 2 is the minor daughter (son's daughter of the petitioners).

The case of the opposite party No. 1 is that after the death of her husband while continuing to stay with the parent-in-laws as before in that house, she was tortured and subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the petitioners. In order to protect the family prestige, she however went on tolerating the same for some time and ultimately a situation came when the petitioners did not provide her with food, medicines etc. It is alleged that on 01.03.2011, she was driven out of from the house. Thus it is stated that she with her minor daughter being the victims of said domestic violence subjected by the petitioners have been aggrieved and are compelled to stay separately. It is her case that the petitioner No. 1 has a four storied building on a prime location of Puri on Swargadwar Road, having eight shop rooms on the ground floor and Seven rooms on the first floor as also second floor each and two rooms in the third floor. They have a hotel running in the said building. Having narrated all those, it is further said that the petitioner No. 1 is having quite handsome monthly income of around Rs. 2.00 lakhs in all. The opposite parties claimed monetary relief of Rs. 30,000/- per month. During pendency of the said proceeding, by filing an application 23 of the PWDV Act, the opposite parties have claimed interim maintenance.

3. The petitioners in their show-cause while traversing the allegations levelled against them have flatly denied to be carrying any liability in the matter of grant of monetary relief to the opposite parties as claimed. It is stated that the opposite party No. 1 is working as an Anganwadi Worker and getting remuneration, when these petitioners have no source of income. They claimed that the son of the petitioners (husband of opposite party No. 1 and father of opposite party No. 2) was looking after the business and has squandered away the properties and assets including the business capital. It is said that for his treatment for the disease of Cirrhosis of Liver, the business unit has been sold for repayment of the dues of money as also the loan taken from the Bank.

4. The trial court analysing the evidence on record in the background of the case of the parties has held as under:-

"I am of the considered view that the aggrieved person is entitled to interim maintenance as per the share of her husband in the family and further held that so far as the quantum of maintenance-is concerned the aggrieved person has submitted that the respondent No. 1 is getting house rent from shops, lodging, hotel and mobile towers to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month besides Rs. 30,000/- annually from landed properties of village as such she prayed to grant Rs. 30,000/- per month towards expenses of food, clothes, medicines, education and basic necessity besides alternative accommodation. On the other hand the respondents contended that the aggrieved person is working as an Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Cent