SURAT SINGH Vs. SHARDA SH. KUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these appeals arise out of the judgment dtd. 29/2/2019, therefore, they are taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by way of a common reasoning.

(2.) Both the parties have filed these petitions under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dtd. 29/2/2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 6-S/10 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal No. 34-S/10 of 2019.

(3.) Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the applicant-Sharda (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant') had filed an application under Sec. 12 of Protection of Women from domestic Violence Act, 2005 alleging that the applicant was living with respondent-Surat Singh (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent') as wife for the last 40 years. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 1960 and two children, namely, Surinder Prakash and Sushma were born out of the wedlock. The long and continuous cohabitation between the applicant and the respondent has been adjudged by Civil Court. Though Civil Court had held that the applicant cannot be said to be the legally married to the respondent but it was concluded that the applicant and respondent are living together in a house hold as they are related by consanguinity and relationship like marriage for all intends and purposes. The Pariwar Register, electoral card also depict that applicant and respondent were living as husband and wife. The applicant was also residing in a house owned by respondent at Mauja Shamti, Solan. The applicant asserted her right to retain the possession over the part of building i.e. Surat Bhawan. She also alleged that respondent had cheated and misguided her by assuring that she would be kept as a wife and his wife has already been divorced. The respondent was jailed in a criminal case under Sec. 302 of IPC and during this time the applicant not only managed the litigation but also looked after the family of the respondent. She also arranged legal assistance for the respondent when he was facing trial under Sec. 380 of IPC. During the course of marriage Sushma daughter was born in 1989-90. Thus according to applicant since she has continuously cohabited with respondent for the last 40 years, she should not be forcibly evicted from the building in her possession. She has also prayed that respondent be restrained from disconnecting the water and electricity connections of the 4th storey of Surat Bhawan or alienating or disposing of the property in order to adversely affect her right. She has further prayed for grant of maintenance alleging that she did not have any source of income.