NANDITA SARKAR NEE SEN Vs. TILAK SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 29th June, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court at Howrah in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2012 affirming the judgement and order dated 6th December, 2012 as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court at Howrah in Miscellaneous Case No. 269 of 2012 refusing interim residence order/ monetary relief under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act of 2005) has been assailed.

(2.) THE facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are to the effect that the petitioner was married to one Saugata Sarkar (since deceased) on 10th May, 2009 under the Special Marriage Act. At the time of marriage, various articles including gold and silver ornaments were gifted. Respondents no. 1 and 2 are the parents -in -law of the petitioner and the petitioner resided in a domestic relationship with them at her matrimonial home in the course of her married life. The matrimonial life of the petitioner was, however, unhappy. She found that her husband was not physically fit and suffered from various ailments. He was addicted to alcohol and other ill -habits. On 29th October, 2010 husband of the petitioner viz. Saugata Sarkar succumbed to his ailments and expired. After the death of her husband, the petitioner was forced to leave her matrimonial home which, according to her, was a 'shared household'. At that time she was handed over some of her ornaments which were gifted to her as stridhan at the time of her marriage. According to the petitioner, other stridhan articles were not returned to her and in spite of repeated requests respondents no. 1 and 2 have refused to return them to her. In this connection, on 4th February, 2011 the petitioner sent a lawyer's notice to respondent no. 1 demanding the remaining stridhan articles but there was no reply. On 16th February, 2012, the petitioner and her brother went to her matrimonial home for obtaining death certificate of her husband but not only the same was not handed over to them but they were abused and insulted by the parents -in -law of the petitioner. Brother of the petitioner diarised such event at the local police station. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed criminal case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents no. 1 and 2. Respondent no. 1 is an employee of UCO Bank and has an income of Rs.45,530/ - per month. Respondent no. 2, mother -in -law of the petitioner, is a school teacher and has an income of Rs.6,000/ - per month. The petitioner is a victim of domestic violence and has been neglected by the respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner sought interim relief to the tune of Rs.5,000/ - per month as well as residence order in the shared household. The respondents no. 1 and 2 opposed such prayer. In their objection they pleaded that there was no domestic relationship by and between themselves and the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner was not entitled to any relief as sought for as the matrimonial home stood in the name of the respondent no. 1 and the same could not have been said to be 'shared household' of the petitioner. It was further pleaded that after the death of her husband she was not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondents who are the parents -in -law of the petitioner.