MARY JACOB Vs. ELIZABETH JACOB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The former revision petition is filed against the judgment in Crl A No. 222 of 2012 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge - V, Ernakulam whereby the order dated 21/12/2011 in CMP No. 489 of 2011 in MC No. 38 of 2009 of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Ernakulam was set aside. The same revision petitioner filed the latter revision petition against the judgment in Crl A No. 225 of 2012 of the same Court whereby the order in CMP No. 490 of 2011 in the aforesaid MC No. 38 of 2009 was interfered with and remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. In fact, it is a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, hereafter in this order, the parties are referred to in accordance with their status in Crl R P No. 102 of 2014. Respondents 1 and 2 are respectively the estranged wife and daughter of the 3rd respondent and the revision petitioner is the sister of the 3rd respondent. A succinct narration of the facts is required for a proper disposal of these revision petitions.

(2.) The marriage between the first respondent and the 3rd respondent was solemnised on 08/07/1990 and the 2nd respondent was born in their wedlock on 29/06/1991. The mother of the revision petitioner / the mother - in - law of the first respondent died on 24/01/2008 and in fact, her husband viz., the father of the revision petitioner and the third respondent predeceased her. The revision petitioner and the third respondent were having another sibling and she pre - deceased the parents. After the death of the parents the disputed house, claimed to be the shared household, and the contenement that situate in the State of Karnataka were inherited by the revision petitioner and the third respondent. The first respondent was taken to that house after the marriage on 08/07/1990 and she claimed to have resided there from 1991 to 1994 and thereafter, during 1997-1998. Subsequent to the death of the in - laws the first respondent filed MC No. 38 of 2009 before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Ernakulam under S.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short 'DV Act'). It was filed with the following prayers: -

(3.) The first respondent filed MC No. 38 of 2009 stating that the marriage between herself and the third respondent was solemnised as per the religious rites and ceremonies, on 08/07/1990 and thereafter they were residing together at House No. 158 (Old No. 71/1) of Nandidurg Road, Bangalore - 46 (the house in question) and that it is her shared household. It was further alleged therein that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and that she lived there from 1991 to 1994 and also during 1997-1998. It was also stated therein that from 1998 onwards the first and third respondents were living separately and that the first and second respondents were residing at Ernakulam in a rented building. In fact, the second respondent herein was the 2nd petitioner therein. Essentially, they filed the petition as they required an accommodation in the shared household of the first respondent on being faced with difficulty in paying rent for the house at Ernakulam. It was also alleged therein that they got reliable information that the revision petitioner and the 3rd respondent were proposing to sell the shared household and therefore, it was sought to refrain them from transferring the shared household. A further prayer to direct the 3rd respondent herein / the first respondent therein to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month was also sought for besides a residential order directing the respondents therein to make arrangement for the peaceful residence of the petitioners in the shared household. Evidently, yet another prayer claiming Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents therein viz., the revision petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein was also sought for. On due process, the respondents therein / the revision petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein appeared before the Court and they denied the allegations. After considering the arguments advanced and the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Magistrate allowed MC No. 38 of 2009 in part as per order dated 04/09/2010 as hereunder: