LEJEUNE RAMOT SARODJA Vs. KAVITHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent has moved a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women (from Domestic Violence) Act in M.C. No. 13 of 2013 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Karaikal. Her husband is the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 25447 of 2013 and petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 18318 of 2013 are her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Petitioners seek to quash proceedings in above case. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the respondent has moved M.C. No. 13 of 2013 on 25.02.2013 and therein she has sought an order restraining the petitioners or any of their relatives 'from entering into any of the portions of the shared household on the north fencing room in the house in door No. 22-E, Singaravelar Salai, Karaikal in which the aggrieved person/respondent has been residing and if necessary to impose any additional condition that may be necessary to protect or provide for the safely of the aggrieved person and her child and if necessary require the petitioners herein to execute the bond with or without sureties preventing the commission of domestic violence u/s. 19 in addition to police protection to continue the possession and not by dispossession of the said shared house hold of the respondent.

(2.) Learned counsel produced a settlement deed dated 31.03.2012 registered as Doc No. 2121/2012 at the SRO, Karaikal, wherein the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 25447 of 2013, husband of the complainant/respondent, has settled the property in favour of his mother, the first petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 18318 of 2013. The submission of learned counsel is that the property wherein the respondent seeks a right of residence is the sole and absolute property of the mother-in-law/first petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 18318 of 2013 and as on the date of the petition in M.C. No. 13/2013 no such right accrued to the respondent. In support of his submission, learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex court in S.R. Batra and Another v. Smt. Taruna Batra, 2007 AIR(SC) 1118,

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent/complainant submitted that the property wherein the respondent claims right is one where she and her husband, the petitioner in Crl. O.P. 25447 of 2013, had resided as husband and wife and as such her right of residence therein cannot be defeated by a subsequent act of settlement of property in favour of her mother-in-law. Learned counsel would also submit that even otherwise the respondent would be entitled to an order of protection.