Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J.:- The defendant- petitioner is daughter-in-law of plaintiff respondents No.1 and 2. The plaintiff- respondents have filed a suit for declaration that defendant-petitioner has got no right to reside and use any portion of house No.108, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh as plaintiff- respondent No.1 is the exclusive owner of the said house, besides seeking a mandatory injunction directing the defendant- petitioner to vacate the premises belonging to the plaintiffs on providing of a reasonable and suitable accommodation to the petitioner during the pendency of the suit. The defendant- petitioner is in possession of one bed room which is shown as ABCD in the site plan. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim mandatory injunction has been filed by the plaintiff- respondents for a direction to the defendant- petitioner to vacate the premises on providing of a reasonable and suitable alternative accommodation to the defendant during the pendency of the case.

2. The trial Court vide order dated May 27, 2011 passed an ad interim mandatory injunction order directing the defendant- petitioner to vacate the portion of the house in her possession on their providing alternative reasonable accommodation to her during the pendency of the case, taking into consideration the fact that the defendant- petitioner is none-else but daughter-in-law of the plaintiffs whose son has left for Australia leaving her to live with his parents.

3. In an appeal filed by defendant- petitioner, the lower Appellate Court vide order dated October 7, 2011 held that it is none of the liabilities of the plaintiff – respondents to provide alternative accommodation to the defendant as defendant is otherwise a working lady and must be possessed of all the means to maintain herself and her residence and that prima facie, the parents-in-law of petitioner have got no liability to provide accommodation to defendant as such allowed the appeal directing the defendant- petitioner to vacate the room marked ABCD in the site plan.

4. Aggrieved by the order dated October 7, 2011 passed by the lower Appellate Court, the defendant- petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, claiming that the defendant- petitioner is in possession of her matrimonial home and that her husband has permitted her to set up the matrimonial home in the premises in question. The plaintiffs have not claimed any relief against the petitioner’s husband and that the rights of the petitioner to occupy the premises in question are protected under Sections 18 and 19 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and that she has also got a right of maintenance which includes right of residence. It has been contended that a fraud has been played with the defendant as the son of the plaintiffs was earlier married to one Manu Mehta, who had obtained divorce on the ground of abandonment. The petitioner claims that ad-interim mandatory injunction ought not have been granted to the plaintiff- respondents.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondents Mr. Raman Mahajan, has vehemently contended that the presence of petitioner in the premises in dispute is a continuous threat to the peaceful living of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs have in their suit claimed an injunction to restrain the defendant or her relatives from interfering in the peaceful life and liberty of the plaintiffs as well as privacy of the plaintiffs who are senior citizens aged 72 years and 67years, suffering from various ailments. In support of his contention, he has placed on record a complaint filed by the defendant on December 20, 2011 to the Incharge, Police Post, Sector 22, Chandigarh, complaining that the plaintiffs and their elder son Sanjay Mehta had used derogatory remarks and made obscene gesture to out-rage her modesty. He also referred to DDR No. 19 dated January 10, 2012 indicating that the security