A wife has the right to reside in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, affirming joint family rights.

1. Heard Sri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri P.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 19.12.2009 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2009, Smt. Ashu Sharma v. State of U.P. and others under S.23 of the Protection of Women - appellate Court has set aside the order dated 19.09.2009, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in Case No. 75 of 2008, rejecting the application dated 24.6.2008, filed by opposite party No.2 under S.23 of the Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Saharanpur, directing the revisionist to reside in the house of opposite party No.2.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist No.1 is the husband of opposite party No.2, who were married in accordance with Hindu Rights and Tradition on 19.5.2002. From the said wedlock a male child, namely, Kaustubh Sharma, who at present is aged about 3 years and 4 months. The relationship between revisionist No.1, Nishant Sharma and opposite party No.2, Smt. Anshu Sharma become strained. Due to the conduct of revisionist No.1 and his family members, the opposite party No.2 was compelled to leave the house of the revisionists. After the opposite party No.2 left her matrimonial house, there were several litigations between opposite party No. 2 and revisionist No.1 such as under S.498A, S.323, S.504, S.506, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. A petition under S.125, Cr.P.C. was also filed by opposite party No.2 against the revisionist No.1. The revisionist No.1 had also filed a suit for divorce bearing Divorce Petition No. 117 of 2006 against opposite party No.2.

4. On 24.6.2008, application No. 75 of 2008 under S.19 and S.37(2) along with an application under S.23(2) of the Act read with S.12, S.17, S.18, S.19, S.20 and S.22 of the Act was filed by opposite party No.2 against the revisionists in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur. On the said application, the revisionists also filed their objections on 8.3.2009. The learned Magistrate rejected the application of the opposite party No.2 under S.23 of the Act by which she has prayed that the revisionist No.2 be directed to allow her to live in house No. 18, New Madhav Nagar, Saharanpur and no interference could be made by the revisionist vide order dated 19.9.2009 on the ground that the opposite party No.2 after the marriage was living with her husband and thereafter she returned from her husband's house was living at her parental house, hence she had no right to live along with his minor son in the house which is owned by revisionist No.2 from his own resources, hence it is not in the interest of justice to grant her any interim / ex parte relief.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.9.2009 passed by the learned Magistrate, the opposite party No.2 preferred an appeal before the Additional Session Judge, Court No.10, Saharanpur which was allowed by the Session Judge vide order dated 19.12.2009 and set aside the order dated 19.9.2009 and further directed that the opposite party No.2 and her son Kaustaubh be permitted to live in house No. 18, New Madhava Nagar and further the revisionists were restrained from interfering in the peaceful living of opposite party No.2 and her minor son in the said house.

6. On 24.12.2009, the opposite party No.2 filed an application stating that the police of the concerned police station may be directed to get the opposite party No.2 in the possession of the property o