The original applicant of Misc. Application No.1043 of 2008 has filed this Revision Application against the order dated 12.4.2010 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2009.
In Misc. Criminal Application No.1043 of 2008 filed by the applicant was allowed by order dated 27.1.2009 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.14, Ahmedabad, under the provisions of Sections 12(1), 18 and 19 of the Domestic Violence Act, wherein present respondent Nos.2 to 5 are directed to provide shelter in the premises of respondent No.2 - Arvindbhai Somabhai Parmar. Aggrieved by the said order present respondent Nos.2 to 5 preferred Appeal before the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, wherein the learned Additional City Sessions Judge while considering the decision rendered by the Sessions Court in the case of S.R.Batra & Anr. Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra, AIR 2007 SC 1118 allowed the Appeal of the present respondent Nos.2 to 5 and observed at para-27 that claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband's in-laws or other relatives.
Heard Mr. C.R.Mishra, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr.H.L.Jani, learned APP for respondent - State and Mr.Rajesh Kanani, learned advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
Mr.Mishra, learned advocate for the applicant has read the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and contended that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has rightly observed that the present applicant has right to obtain shelter under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. He has contended that present applicant's husband has assisted the respondents in purchasing the house and being a son of the respondent Nos.2 to 3, the applicant's husband has given the contribution in purchasing the premises. The present applicant is living with her husband and they are driven away from the house of the respondent No.1. He has contended that the decision rendered in the case of S.R.Batra & Anr. (Supra) is not applicable in the present case. He has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order of learned Additional City Sessions Judge.
Mr.Rajesh Kanani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 has contended that present revision is not maintainable and has prayed to dismiss present revision.
Mr.H.L.Jani, learned APP for the respondent- State has read Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act and contended that present revision is not maintainable and it requires to be dismissed.
I have heard the learned advocates of both the sides at length and in great detail. I have also gone through papers produced before me and the judgments and orders passed by the learned Judge. Section-3 of the Domestic Violence Act reads as under :-
"Section-3 For the purpose of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it-
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security;
or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause
(b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
From definition of Section-3 of the Domestic Violence Act and from averments of the present petition it appears that the facts of the present case are not covered within Section-3 of the Act. It is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R.Batra & Anr. (Supra) at para-27 has observed as under :-
"The claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband's in-laws or other relatives."
It appears that present revision application is filed against father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. It is an admitted fact that applicant has not filed any claim against her husband.
In view of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R.Batra & Anr. (Supra) I find that the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
From the contents of the application, I do not find any substance in the same, the same is not tenable in law. This application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.
K. SAIYED, J) kks Top