C. NAGARAJAN Vs. M. VENNILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Revision case as against the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below in awarding right to reside in the property owned by the petitioner/husband or in the alternative to pay the rent, which is now in occupation of the respondent/wife. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

(2.) The main ground of attack by the petitioner/husband is that both the Courts below have failed to take into consideration the fact that the address mentioned in the HMOP No. 60 of 2009 preferred by the respondent/wife, the address of the petitioner as well as the respondent were shown as Door No. 309. However, according to the petitioner, the complaint in D.V. No. 1 of 2012 has been filed only in the year 2012 and at that time, admittedly, she was not residing in the said Door number. When such being the position, the judgment passed by the trial court granting the relief of residential order to the respondent/wife is not in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 19(c) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner would further contend that the said fact was also admitted by the respondent herself during cross examination. However, both the Courts below have failed to take into consideration this vital fact and ordered the relief of shared house hold, which the respondent/wife is not entitled to or in the alternative to pay the rent for the house, which is in occupation of the respondent/wife. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgments of both the Courts below.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife would submit as follows: