V D BHANOT Vs. SAVITA BHANOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Special Leave Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 22 nd March, 2010, passed by the Delhi High Court in Cr.M.C.No.3959 of 2009 filed by the Respondent wife, Mrs. Savita Bhanot, questioning the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 18 th September, 2009,dismissing the appeal filed by her against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 11 th May, 2009.

(2.) There is no dispute that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23 rd August, 1980 and till 4 th July, 2005, they lived together. Thereafter, for whatever reason, there were misunderstandings between the parties, as a result whereof, on 29 th November, 2006, the Respondent filed a petition before the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the "PWD Act", seeking various reliefs. By his order dated 8 th December, 2006, the learned Magistrate granted interim relief to the Respondent and directed the Petitioner to pay her a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. By a subsequent order dated 17 th February, 2007, the Magistrate passed a protection/residence order under Sections 18 and 19 of the above Act, protecting the right of the Respondent wife to reside in her matrimonial home in Mathura. The said order was challenged before the Delhi High Court, but such challenge was rejected.

(3.) In the meantime, the Petitioner, who was a member of the Armed Forces, retired from service on 6 th December, 2007, and on 26 th February, 2008, he filed an application for the Respondent s eviction from the Government accommodation in Mathura Cantonment. The learned Magistrate directed the Petitioner herein to find an alternative accommodation for the Respondent who had in the meantime received an eviction notice requiring her to vacate the official accommodation occupied by her. By an order dated 11 th May, 2009, the learned Magistrate directed the Petitioner to let the Respondent live on the 1 st Floor of House No.D-279, Nirman Vihar, New Delhi, which she claimed to be her permanent matrimonial home. The learned Magistrate directed that if this was not possible, a reasonable accommodation in the vicinity of Nirman Vihar was to be made available to the Respondent wife. She further directed that if the second option was also not possible, the Petitioner would be required to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the Respondent as rental charges, so that she could find a house of her choice.