A woman has a right to reside in a shared household under the Domestic Violence Act, but this right is not absolute and is subject to legal procedures for eviction and provision of alternate accommodation.

JUDGMENT

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. A Criminal Misc. (Main) under Section 482 /483 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter "Cr.P.C.") read with Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the Order/Judgment dated 20.08.2020 of the learned Sessions Judge and also for setting aside Order dated 21.12.2019 of the learned M.M in Complaint Case No.4455/2017 filed by the petitioner under Domestic Violence Act.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner Tanu Gupta got married to respondent No.2 Nikhil Gupta on 12.07.2016 and came to reside in the Flat No.259, Canara Apartment, Sec-13, Rohini, and Delhi of which her father B in B law/respondent No.3 is the absolute owner. Soon after the marriage, difference arose between the parties and respondent No.3 to 5 who are the parents-in-law and sister-in-law shifted out of this accommodation to another self-owned property in the same locality. Thereafter, on 19.07.2017 respondent No.2/husband also left the shared household and sent the message that he was not coming. All the efforts for reconciliation did not succeed. The petitioner being aggrieved by the alleged cruel and barbaric acts of respondent No.2 to 5, filed a Petitioner under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter „DV Act’), 2005.

3. During the pendency of proceedings, an Application was filed by the petitioner to seek protection of her residence in shared household, which was allowed by learned M.M vide Order dated 21.12.2017 and the respondents were restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the shared household. On 05.03.2018, the respondent No.2 was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month.

4. The respondent No.3 and 4 instituted a Civil Suit CS No.1095/2017 against the petitioner and her parents for directing her to vacate the suit premises in order to defeat her right of residence in shared household. An application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was filed by the respondents seeking a judgment on admissions, but the Application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide Order dated 29.07.2019.

5. Simultaneously, respondent No.3 father-in-law filed an Application for vacation of Order dated 21.12.2017 which the petitioner has claimed to be not maintainable. The Ld. M.M. vide the impugned Order dated 21.12.2019 not only recalled this Order granting interim protection from dispossession to the petitioner, but also withdrew the Order dated 05.03.2018 granting interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/-.

6. Aggrieved by this Order dated 21.12.2019 passed by learned M.M, a Crl. Appeal No.04/2019 was preferred before the learned District & Sessions Judge, who vide detailed Order considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner and dismissed the Appeal on 20.08.2020. The present Crl. M.C. has thus, been filed to challenge the Order dated 20.08.2020 of the learned Sessions Judge.

7. The grounds of Appeal are that the impugned Order has been made in complete disregard to her assertions that the Flat in which she is residing is a shared household and she cannot be evicted or excluded from her shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law as provided under Section 17(2) of the Act. The respondents have intentionally not mentioned about the Civil Suit filed by respondent No.3 and 4 seeking possession of the Suit property from the petitioner and also that their Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking judgment on admissions had been dismissed.

8. The respondent No.3 father-in-law had moved an Application seeking permission to sell the property which has been erroneously entertained by the learned M.M under PWDV Act despite the fact that the Application of father-in-law was not maintainable under the Act, as he is not an aggrieved person who can seek any succour under this Act. It is only the woman who is an aggrieved person and entitled to seek relief under the Act. Such forum shopping by respondent