BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A.P. Bhangale, J.
Sheetal —Applicant
versus
Hitesh —Respondents
Crl. Application No. 1534 of 2010
Decided on 28-6-2011
(ii) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Section 2(5) & 23—Shared household —Interim order directing opposite party respondent husband to restore possession of shared household i.e. one room on second floor of building—Appellate Court disbelieved the contentions of appellant that she was residing with her husband on second floor and set aside the order—Revision —Sessions Judge committed an error in considering new evidence in the form of an affidavit of a person calming to be tenant in respect of second floor when Magistrate had noted that second floor was vacant—Merely because divorce proceedings were pending between parties, same could not deprive applicant from claiming relief under the Act, —Impugned order of appellate court was liable to be set aside. (Paras 11 to 13)
Result: Petition allowed
A.P. Bhangale, J.— Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard Mr. A.A. Sonak, Adv. for the applicant and Mr. Masood Shareef, Adv. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 3rd September, 2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-7, Nagpur with consequential prayer to restore the order dt.18.6.2010 passed below Ex. 16 in Criminal Application No. 541 of2010 by 20th Joint Civil Judge (Jr. Division.) and J.M.F.C. Nagpur. It appears that the present applicant had filed proceedings against her husband and mother-in-law under Section 12 r/w. Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2005’). Alongwith the main application, the applicant had also moved another application for grant of interim relief with averments that the applicant alongwith her husband (respondent No.1) got married on 5th December, 2008 at Nagpur. The applicant had a son by name Sujal who was born on 23.10.2004 at Nagpur and who is residing with her. She had resided in the share household premises at Plot No. 170, Chakradhar Nagar, Old Subhedar Layout, Nagpur alonewith her husband which, according to the applicant, is a two storeyed house (ground plus two) consisting of eleven rooms; four rooms on the ground floor, six rooms on the first floor and one room on the second floor. It is contended that the respondents had locked the entire building on 5.4.2010 and committed the act of domestic violence and deprived the applicant of shared household.
3. According to the applicant, respondent No.1 had illtreated her on the pretext of demand for money from her to purchase a four wheeler. Earlier, the applicant resided with her husband at Mhalgi Nagar, but after death of her father-in-law she resided at Chakradhar Nagar. There were matrimonial disputes between the applicant and her husband. Ultimately, the applicant had also lodged report to police regarding illtreatment given to her by her husband. The applicant had informed police station, Sakkardhara that she had been deprived of residence at the house of her husband and in-laws as they had locked the building where the applicant resided alongwith, her husband. Under these circumstances, the applicant had moved the application under Section 12 r/w Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Act of 2005 in the Court of J.M.F.C. Corporation Court No.1 at Nagpur with a prayer to restrain her husband and mother-in-law from dispossessing her or disturbing her possession from the shared household i.e. second floor of the building situated on plot No. 170 at Chakradhar Nagar, Old Subhedar Layout, Nagpur.
4. During pendency of the aforesaid application, the applicant moved for grant of interim relief on 13.4.2010 with a prayer to restore possession of the shared household to the applicant considering her future as well as future of her son and to avoid their starvation. The said application was contested by respondent No.1 (husband of the applicant) on the ground that the claim of the applicant is false and she had suppressed the fact of pendency of proceedings for divorce against her in the Family Court, Nagpur. According to respondent No. 1 husband, the applicant was served at the address plot No. 33, Flat No. 101 Sahakar Apartment, Mhalgi Nagar, Ring road, near Besa Power House, Nagpur. It is also contended that responaent No. 1 is paying rent for the said premises occupied by the applicant. The interim relief was opposed tooth and nail by respondent No.1. The learned J.M.F.C. Nagpur who heard the application (Ex. 16) for grant of interim relief by an order dated 18.6.2010 directed the respondents herein to restore possession of the shared household i.e. on second floor plot No. 170, Chakradhar Nagar, Old Subhedar layout, Nagpur till final disposal of the main application
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.