INDU RANI Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking modification of the judgment dated 8.3.2013 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge -I, Kangra at Dharamshala in Criminal Appeal No. 34 -B/2007 and the order dated 3.10.2007 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra in Criminal Complaint No. 35 -III/2007.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that Indu Rani, petitioner, (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner" for the sake of convenience) filed a complaint against Raj Kumar, respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent") under Sections 12, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" in short) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Baijnath, District Kangra. According to the averments contained in the complaint, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27.4.1990. Out of the wedlock, two children, namely, Deepika and Vijay were born. The petitioner was forced to move out of matrimonial house by the respondent in the year 2002. According to her, son is residing with her and daughter is residing with the respondent. The amount of maintenance, i.e. Rs. 1000/ - provided to her son is not sufficient. Her son is not keeping good health. She has to incur huge expenditure on his treatment. It is alleged in the complaint that earlier she used to run a shop at Ustehar. She out of her own earnings had constructed two rooms by the side of the road. However, she has been ousted from the rooms by the respondent. The shop was only source of livelihood to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent has kept another lady namely Rekha Bhardwaj.

(3.) ALONG with reply, the respondent also filed an application under Section 19(F) of the Act. According to the averments contained in this application, he had already given a house consisting of four rooms along with requisite articles to the petitioner in the presence of the Pradhan and Up -Pradhan of the area. Hence, the petitioner was not entitled for the house, as alleged.