The right of residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is not indefeasible in property exclusively owned by in-laws, and alternative accommodation is permissible when ownership is clear.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant revision is filed in terms of Section 442 read with Section 438 BNSS, 2023 at the behest of the petitioners assailing the correctness, legality and judicial propriety of the impugned judgment as at Annexure-6 dated 29^th June, 2024 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack on the grounds inter alia that such decision is legally untenable, hence, liable to be interferred with in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioners filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) registered as D.V. Misc. Case No.42 of 2020 seeking protection order with other reliefs including maintenance and compensation payable to them by the opposite parties.

3. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of opposite party No.1, whereas, petitioner No.2 is their daughter and in so far as opposite party No.2 is concerned, she is the mother of opposite party No.1. In fact, the proceeding under the Act was initiated against the opposite parties and two others, namely, father-in-law and sister-in-law as respondent Nos.2 and 4 respectively with the plea that except respondent No.4, the parties are in a domestic relationship residing in a shared household. According to petitioner No.1, soon after her marriage with opposite party No.1, she was subjected to ill- treatment on demand of dowry, hence, a criminal case vide C.T. No.440 of 2014 was registered in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. With such other facts pleaded, the petitioners demanded protection against any act of domestic violence by the opposite parties and other reliefs besides payment of Rs. 25,000/- per month towards maintenance. A show cause was filed by the opposite parties before the learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack. Ultimately, the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack, while dealing with an application under Section 23 of the Act restrained opposite party No.2 not to alienate the property in Lot 1 situate over Plot No.3C/261, Sector-9, CDA, Cuttack, wherein, the petitioners claimed their shared household and being aggrieved of, the opposite parties challenged the same in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2023, which was disposed of on 29^th June, 2024 setting it aside vide Annexure-6. In view of the decision in appeal, the petitioners have approached this Court in revision on the ground that the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that the parties are in domestic relationship and enjoying a shared household, hence, any disposal of the property in question is likely to prejudice them.

4. Perused the show cause reply of the opposite parties, wherein, it has been pleaded that such an order is not to affect the petitioners as there is a provision under Section 19(1)(f) of the Act which allows to secure the same level of alternative accommodation as enjoyed by them in a shared household or to make provision for payment of rent, if the circumstances so required and therefore, the learned Court below after taking into account all such aspects of the case, rightly, on just and reasonable ground interfered with the order of restraint of the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack.

5. The rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner is gone through, wherein, the impugned decision has been questioned on the ground that alternative accommodation cannot be a substitute to a shared household irrespective of, whether, petitioner No.1 is having any right, title or interest therein.

6. Heard Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

7. The learned Court below considered the allegation of domestic violence put forth by petitioner No.1 and the denial by the opposite parties took cognizance of the fact about estranged relationship between her and opposite party No.1 and also the claim that the parties are residing together. While