NIDHI KUMAR GHANDHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ('crpc')challenges an order dated 2nd February 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge ('ast), Rohini, Delhi in an application for interim relief in Crl. Appeal No. 2 of 2008. By the said impugned order the learned ASJ stayed the operation of the order dated 20th december 2007 passed by the learned metropolitan Magistrate ('mm') to the extent that the Respondent herein was directed to restore the status quo ante in relation to the petitioner's possession of the portion of the house at No. C-36, Pushpanjali Enclave, pitampura, Delhi-110034, as on 16th April 2007, a day prior to her eviction therefrom. The Petitioner was further restrained by the impugned order of the learned ASJ from interfering with the possession of the said house.

(2.) THE facts in brief leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the Petitioner on 5th october 2007 filed an application in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate ('acmm') under Section 12 of the protection of Women from Domestic Violence act, 2005 ('act' ). The Petitioner stated in the said application that she had been forcibly thrown out from her matrimonial home at C-36, pushpanjali Enclave, Pitampura, pelhi-110034 along with her minor daughter on 17th April 2007. It was further stated in the said application that at the time of her stay in the matrimonial home, she was in possession of one bed room attached with bath room, kitchen, store room and open terrace in front of bed room having separate entrance from main gate at ground floor. Among the reliefs sought in the application was a residence order allowing the Petitioner to enter the matrimonial home from where she had been evicted. The petitioner also sought payment of maintenance from the Respondent husband Shri Saket kumar Gandhi, the Respondent No. 2 in the present petition. In terms of Section 23 (2) of the Act the Petitioner also filed an affidavit reiterating the above averments.

(3.) AFTER notice was issued in the application, a reply was filed by the Respondents claiming that the matrimonial home was in the name of the father of Respondent No. 2 (who is arraigned as Respondent No. 3 in the present petition ). It was mentioned that the respondent No. 2 had already filed a separate application for restitution of conjugal rights and was willing to take back the Petitioner in the matrimonial home. It was further stated that Respondent No. 2 was at present living separately at not at C-36, Pushpanjali Enclave, pitampura, Delhi.