PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Avtar Singh & Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Smt. Jaswinder Kaur —Respondent
CRM-M-40857 of 2012
Decided on 21.4.2015
Result: Petition disposed of with observations.
Paramjeet Singh, J.—In pursuance of order dated 10.03.2015 petitioner No.1 and respondent appeared in Court in person. An attempt to amicably settle the issue was made but parties were adamant. Hence, I was constrained to hear and decide the petition on merit. During the course of talk of settlement it transpired that petitioner No.1 is residing along with his two sons who have been recently married.
2. This petition raises an interesting issue with regard to concept of “shared-household” and “right of residence” of wife in it or some other place.
3. Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the order dated 03.11.2012 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby order dated 02.04.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PWDV Act’), has been modified, directing the petitioner-husband to provide a portion of house No.2279, Phase X, Mohali to respondent-wife and to properly furnish the said portion according to the choice of wife to enable her to live with dignity in the shared household. It is further directed that if the wife is reluctant to live with the husband, the husband shall pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as rent. The interim maintenance has been enhanced from Rs. 3,000/- per month to Rs.6,000/- per month. Petitioners have only prayed for modification of order dated 03.11.2012 (Annexure P-2) as it gives liberty to respondent-wife to either live in the house where the husband is residing or to live separately.
4. Brief facts of the case are that marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 04.03.1984. From the wedlock two sons, namely, Mandeep Singh and Kanwarjit Singh were born, who are 28 years and 26 years old and both are married. Respondent-wife alleging quarrelsome nature of petitioners and altercations between the family members, filed an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib. Vide order 02.04.2012, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib ordered interim maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document from the date of application and also appointed C.D.P.O., Fatehgarh Sahib as Protection Officer. Against the order dated 02.04.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, which has been allowed vide order 03.11.2012 with the aforesaid directions. Hence, this petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that respondent can get the rented accommodation and petitioner No.1 is ready to pay rent for the same as there is no ample space in the house as he is residing along with his two married sons. There is no possibility of resettlement. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that respondent is residing separately for more than one year and petitioner No.1 has also filed an application for divorce.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that petitioner No.1 has rightly been directed to provide a portion of the house bearing No.2279, Phase X, Mohali as she has right to live in the shared-household being legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1. Learned counsel submits that instead of rented accommodation, petitioner be directed to provide permanent accommodation in his aforementioned house to the respondent.
8. For the disposal of this petition, it is pertinent to look at the relevant provisions of the PWDV Act. The relevant Sections are as under: -
“2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a dom
S.R. Batra and another v. Smt. Taruna Batra
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.