1. By this revision under section 397 r/w 401 of the CrPC, the petitioner husband Naresh Sharma has been aggrieved by the order dated 25.6.2015 passed by the 8th Additional District and Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.363/2014 under section 29, The Protection of Women from Domestic Voilence Act, 2005.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case in nutshell are that the respondent Jyoti Sharma was married to the present petitioner on 12.12.1997 and there are two sons Yethin and Sanskar born out of the wedlock aged 16 and 14 years respectively. Respondent/wife was residing with the petitioner/husband in house No.3502, Sector E, Sudama Nagar, Indore. Thereafter, the petitioner /husband brought a flat No.209, Gold Arcade 3/1, New Palasiya in the name of his wife in which he conducted computer training and service classes. Thereafter, there was marital discord and the respondent/wife started interfering with the business and the training institute of the petitioner/husband. The petitioner/husband filed a petition for divorce in the Family Court, whereas the respondent/wife filed case under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Class I, Indore. The petition for divorce was dismissed, whereas in the case filed by the wife, the Court directed the payment of maintenance to the wife at Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- to each of the child in total Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 8th Additional District and Sessions Judge, who also dismissed the appeal, upheld the findings of the Judicial Magistrate and hence the present petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged the fact that it was the wife and her conduct which was responsible for the marital discord. Moreover, the wife had sufficient income of her own in the nature of fixed deposit of Rs.3,03,000/-, from which she had sufficient interest and income. Moreover, the appellant husband has also filed case for custody of the children and the flat which was being claimed by the wife was actually belonging to the husband and having been given it on rent she had sufficient income for her own. Counsel for the petitioner also vehemently urged the fact that the wife was not entitled to the maintenance as claimed placing reliance on Sunil Madan v. Rachna Madan and another [Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.3071/2008; decided by the High Court of Delhi], wherein the Court observed that it was not a shared household, on the one hand, the petitioner had offered alternative residential accommodation to his wife, who on other hand has sought direction of his removal from the said premises, alleging that he can stay in farm house at Sohna, Haryana. Under the circumstances, the Court had held that it cannot agree with the wife that the petitioner, who is the owner of the house and in view of the settlement that was arrived at between them by the virtue of which she got few properties, should be directed to leave the premises and made to stay in a farm house at far away place. Counsel submitted that in the present case also, the respondent/wife was living with the father-in-law in the house belonging to the petitioner himself and had driven him out from the house and he was constrained to live in rented premises and father-in-law was fully supporting the daughter-in-law and the house did not belong to the father-in-law and in this sense, it cannot be said that it was a shared household. In the matter of Sunil Madan (supra), Court also relied on Ajay Kumar Jain v. Baljit Kaur Jain [160(2009) DLT 401 (DB)], wherein the Court observed thus :

“wife cannot have right to live in a particular property and the same cannot become a clog on the property denying the right of the husband to deal with the property when he is willing to provide an alternative matrimonial home to her. It was also held that she cannot insist on residing in the suit property alone when the husband had offered a suitable alternative a