NARAIN BAI Vs. SWARANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby the order passed by the JMIC, Dabwali, was upheld vide which the respondent was permitted right of residence in the house of the petitioners under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case as stated are that the respondent herein filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. When the matter was taken up on 26.05.2015 the respondent came present in person and requested for grant of residence order in the household of the petitioners as she had become homeless. It was stated that her husband had gone to Germany and the petitioners were not allowing her to enter into her matrimonial home. After hearing the matter, vide order dated 26.05.2015, the JMIC, Dabwali ordered to the petitioners to grant separate residence for her in the house of the petitioners. Being aggrieved against the above order, the petitioners herein filed an appeal where it was averred that the respondent married with Bhajan Lal and soon after marriage she started residing separately with Bhajan Lal in a separate house. After marriage, her husband had gone abroad, the respondent was sent to her parental home by locking the house in which she was residing with Bhajan Lal. It was also averred that the petitioners did not torture her and never demanded dowry as alleged and also the respondent has filed a false petition against the petitioners as they were residing separately. It was further stated that Bhajan Lal, husband of the respondent, had already sold his share in the property vide sale deed dated 11.10.2012, which was purchased by the petitioners herein and therefore, now the respondent has no concern with the property of the petitioners herein. It was also argued that in the will executed by Milkh Raj, father of Bhajan Lal-husband of the respondent, has mentioned that Bhajan Lal had received his share in the joint property and he is living abroad and earning well, therefore, nothing was being bequeathed in his favour. They have further stated that the husband of the respondent went abroad in February, 2013 with the concurrence of the respondent and since respondent could not get the visa, she could not go with her husband. The respondent countered the arguments raised by the petitioners and requested for dismissal of the appeal.

(3.) The Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa has noted that the JMIC, Dabwali in his order has categorically observed that as per the report of the protection officer, the respondent wanted to reside in the matrimonial house and she had been subjected to mental, physical and economic violence by the petitioners herein and as such she falls under the definition of 'aggrieved person' as per Section 2(a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Therefore, while deciding the appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa finding no illegality or infirmity in the order, upheld the order of the JMIC, Dabwali and appeal was dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2015.