TELMA COTTA Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition, filed by the mother-in-law of respondent no.3, who is the wife of respondent no.2, is against the order dated 19/07/2008 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Margao.

(2.) RESPONDENT no.2-wife had approached the trial Court for certain reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and by way of an interim order allowed the respondent-wife to occupy one room in the shared household at Varca and further had directed the respondents (the petitioner and respondent no.2, herein) to allow her to use the gas and other household articles and were further directed not to prevent her from using the bathroom and the toilet in the house and were further restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the said complainant-wife. The learned trial court also directed the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife by way of interim maintenance till the disposal of the main application. The monthly maintenance on April was directed to be paid within 8 days by the said order and thereafter it was directed to be paid on or before 5th of every month to which it related. The respondent-husband was also directed to pay an additional sum of Rs.5,000/- to the said complainant within 8 days. Officer in charge of Colva police station was directed to provide protection to the complainant to implement the residence and protection order.

(3.) SHRI Arun Bras De Sa, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the house in question was not the conjugal home of the parties and, therefore, the respondent-wife cannot claim, as a matter of right, a residence in the same. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the respondent-wife was already dispossessed and therefore no interim relief as regards residence could be granted to the respondent-wife in terms of Section 19 of the said Act. Learned Counsel further submits that the house in question does not belong to the mother, the petitioner, alone but also to her three sons and, as such, a specific room cannot be given to the wife's residence.