SAVITA BHANOT Vs. LT COL V D BHANOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 18.9.2009, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 11.5.2009.

(2.) The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23.8.1980 and the petitioner was driven out of the matrimonial home on 4.7.2005. The case of the petitioner is that it was on account of the conduct of the respondent that she thereafter could not live with him. On 29.11.2006, the petitioner filed a petition before the Magistrate under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking various reliefs. Vide order dated 8.12.2006, the learned Magistrate granted interim relief of Rs.6,000/- per month to the petitioner. Vide subsequent order dated 17.2.2007, he passed protection/residence order and allowed the petitioner to live in her matrimonial home in Mathura. The order dated 17.2.2007 was challenged by the respondent before this Court but his application for staying the order was declined. The respondent, in the meantime, retired from service on 6.12.2007 and on 26.2.2008, he filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from the Government accommodation in Mathura Cantt. The learned Magistrate directed him to locate an alternative accommodation for the petitioner. The petitioner, who had received an eviction notice requiring her to vacate the official accommodation occupied by her, filed an application seeking an urgent relief from the Metropolitan Magistrate. Vide order dated 11.5.2009, the learned Magistrate directed the respondent to let her live on the first floor of House No. D-279, Nirman Vihar which she claimed to be her permanent matrimonial home. She further directed that if this was not possible a reasonable accommodation in the vicinity of Nirman Vihar be made available to her. She further directed that if second option was also not possible, the respondent would pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner as rental charges, so that she could find a house of her choice. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.9.2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that since the petitioner had left the matrimonial home on 4.7.2005 and the Act came into force on 26.10.2006, the claim of a woman living in domestic relationship or living together prior to 26.10.2006, was not maintainable. He was of the view that since the cause of action arose prior to coming into

(3.) The only question which comes up for determination by this Court is as to whether a petition under the provisions of the Act is maintainable by a woman, who had stopped living with the respondent, or by a woman, who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence, prior to coming into force of the Act on 26th October 2006.