The main legal point established is the interpretation of 'shared household' under the DV Act and the entitlement to maintenance based on the husband's income and the needs of the dependents.

Jaishree Thakur, J.

The above captioned two criminal revisions are being disposed of by a common order since parties to the said litigation are common and both challenge the same order dated 08.03.2017 in proceedings arising out of a complaint filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short 'the DV Act').

2. In order to understand the lis between the parties, a few brief facts are being taken from CRR No.1253 of 2017, which has been preferred by petitioner No.1-Krishan Kumar (father-in-law), petitioner No.2-Chameli (mother-in-law) and petitioner No.3-Sandeep Kumar (husband) against complainant-respondent No.1 Navneet alias Seema and others. The parties would be referred to in this order, as has been referred in CRR No.1253 of 2017.

3. Complainant/respondent No.1-wife herein solemnized a marriage on 10.12.2006 with petitioner No.3 herein, out of which wedlock a female child was born on 15.09.2007. She was turned out of her matrimonial home, on account of her husband and his parents not being satisfied with the dowry given. Eventually, a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act along with relief’s claimed under Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the DV Act with the specific relief’s of maintenance and right to reside in the alleged shared household i.e. House No.568, Gali No.11, Gandhi Nagar, Karnal was preferred. The trial court dismissed the relief of residence in the shared household, on the ground that the said house belonged exclusively to the father-in-law and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4000/- per month from the date of the order. The said order was an ex parte order, which was challenged in appeal by the complainant-wife before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal, who allowed the appeal and modified the order of the trial court, to the extent of allowing residence to complainant/respondent no.1-wife in the shared household i.e. House No.568, Gali No.11, Gandhi Nagar, Karnal and also enhanced the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6000/- per month, while also allowing the maintenance to be paid paid from date of filing of the complaint, instead of maintaining the order passed by the trial court, granting maintenance from the date of the order. In the said impugned order a restraining order was issued against petitioner no 1 from alienating the house in question. Aggrieved against the said order, CRR No.1253 of 2017 titled as "Krishan Kumar and others v. Navneet Alias Seema and others" has been preferred by father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband of the complainant-wife whereas, CRR No.2471 of 2017 titled as "Navneet @ Seema v. Sandeep Kumar and others" has been preferred by the complainant-wife. In CRR No.1253 of 2017, the petitioners are seeking to challenge the judgment passed in appeal, allowing right of residence in the house belonging solely to father-in-law of the complainant-wife and the restraining order, whereas in CRR No.2471 of 2017, the petitioner i.e. complainant-wife challenges the said judgment, on the ground that the maintenance so awarded is inadequate, since she has the responsibility of bringing up a minor child and that income of his husband is around Rs. 40,000/- and that he has given incentive of Rs. 12 lakhs for giving a good business to the bank.

4. Mr. Akshay Jindal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners (in CRR No.1253 of 2017) contend the impugned judgment dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal in appeal, allowing right of residence is not sustainable, since the house in question belongs solely to father-in-law of the complainant-wife i.e. petitioner No.1- Krishan Kumar, which fact cannot be ignored. It is argued that the Appellate Court has ignored the dictum as laid down by the Supreme Court in S.R. Batra and another v. Taruna Batra (Smt.), (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 169, wherein it has been held that a house belonging to the mother-in-law cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as a 'shared household'. M