The main legal point established is that the liability for maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act is primarily on the husband, and the father-in-law can be held liable only if the wife proves joint family or ancestral property rights.

R.P. Nagrath, J.

Respondent No. 1 is the wife of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 is their daughter. It was not disputed that respondent No. 3 was married during the proceedings and therefore, claim for residence in the shared household and for grant of maintenance for this respondent no more survived.

2. Petitioner is the father of respondent No. 2. Marriage of respondents No. 1 and 2 was solemnized on 19.10.1986. An application was filed before Judicial Magistrate, Patiala on 31.07.2008, under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'). The learned Magistrate allowed the application on 07.01.2009 restraining the husband and her father-in-law (petitioner herein) from dispossessing her from 'shared household' except in due course of law and from committing any Domestic Violence. No interim order for granting maintenance was, however, passed.

3. Respondents No. 1 and 3 felt aggrieved and filed revision before Sessions Court against the petitioner and respondent No. 2. It was found that respondent No. 1 has no independent source of income and should have been granted maintenance allowance also. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision on 22.09.2010 awarding maintenance for respondent No. 1 @ Rs. 1500/- per month to be effective from the date of application.

4. The Magistrate's order protecting possession of respondent No. 1 in the house was not challenged by petitioner by filing appeal. The instant revision is confined to the award of maintenance qua the petitioner only and with regard to protection order it was contended that petitioner is adopting appropriate recourse to initiate proceedings before civil Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that so long as the husband is alive and it is not proved that the house in question is the joint family property or ancestral house, no liability towards maintenance allowance can be fixed on the father-in-law.

6. The law on the subject is quite well settled and supports the petitioner's contention.

7. In S.R. Batra and another v. Smt. Taruna Batra, 2007 (3) SCC 169, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no such law in India, like the British Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967, and in any case, the rights which may be available under any law can only be as against the husband and not against the father-in-law.

8. In Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and others, 2008 (4) SCC 649, the Apex Court held as under:-

"xx xx xx xx xx

21. Maintenance of a married wife, during subsistence of marriage, is on the husband. It is a personal obligation. The obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law arises only when the husband had died. Such an obligation can also be met from the properties of which the husband is a co-sharer and not otherwise. For invoking the said provision, the husband must have a share in the property. The property in the name of the mother-in-law can neither be a subject mater of attachment nor during the life time of the husband, his personal liability to maintain his wife can be directed to be enforced against such property."

22. Wholly un-contentious issues have been raised before us on behalf of Sonalben (wife). It is well settled that apparent state of affairs of state shall be taken a real state of affairs. It is not for an owner of the property to establish that it is his self-acquired property and the onus would be on the one, who pleads contra. Sonalben might be entitled to maintenance from her husband. An order of maintenance might have been passed but in view of the settled legal position, the decree, if any, must be executed against her husband and only his properties could be attached therefor but not of her mother-in-law.

23. xx xx xx xx xx

24. Section 4 (Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act) provides for a non obstante clause. In terms of the said provision itself any obligation on the part of in-laws in terms of any text, rule