PRABHA TOPPO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the private opposite parties.

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 12.9.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Cr. Appeal No. 25 of 2012, whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 22.2.2012 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Giridih, in C -1363 of 2011 / T.R. No.1816 of 2012, has been set -aside by the learned Appellate Court below. It may be stated that the learned S.D.J.M by order dated 22.2.2012 had allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (herein after referred to as the 'Act'), and the opposite party Raju Bodra, who is the husband of the petitioner, was directed to keep the complainant Prabha Toppo in the house in question. It appears that the said order was challenged by Raju Bodra and his two cousin sisters, in whose favour the house in question was claimed to be sold by Raju Bodra, by filing the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih. Learned Sessions Judge by order dated 12.9.2012 passed in the said Cr. Appeal No. 25 of 2012, has allowed the appeal and set -aside the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Giridih, finding that the petitioner wife was allotted a government quarter being the Accounts Clerk in the Office of the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Giridih, she was residing at police line, Barwadih, Giridih and this fact was not controverted by the complainant. The Appellate Court below also found that the house in question was sold to the cousin sisters, though some legal formalities had not been complied with, but no order could be passed against the women under the provision of Section 19 of the said Act. The Appellate Court below accordingly, allowed the appeal and set -aside the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Giridih.

(3.) THE report, on the basis of which the order was passed in favour of the petitioner, has been brought on record as Annexures 2 and 3 to this application. The report clearly shows that on the date of inspection of the house in question by the C.D.P.O., the petitioner was not living in the house. It has come in the report that after her marriage, the petitioner lived in the house only for one month. In the concluding part of the report also, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner had already been dispossessed from the said house.