Rekha Mittal, J.

The present petition directs challenge against the orders dated 5.12.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sonepat and dated 19.9.2015 by the Sessions Judge, Sonepat whereby her claim for providing residential accommodation in a double strayed house measuring 1280 square feet, situated in village Gangana, has been dismissed.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the house in question was owned by grand father of the respondent/husband, the petitioner can claim right of residence in the said house, being the ancestral property of the respondent.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book and the records.

4. The Appellate Court in para 14 of the judgment has held that the petitioner could not establish that respondent is a member of Hindu co-parcenery family and the house at village Gangana was the property of Hindu undivided family, therefore, the house in question cannot be said to be a shared household. It has further been held that the petitioner is working as a guest teacher at Sonepat, residing in Gali No. 3, Malviya Nagar, Sonepat, therefore, her claim for residence in house at Gangana is not bo