- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Santosh Kumar Singh "Paliwal", learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. and also perused the material placed on record.
(2.) The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 7.4.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2014 (Chhangur Ram Nishad Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 19.7.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Court no.22, Azamgarh in Misc. Case No.727 of 2014 (Smt. Bindu Devi Vs. Chhangur Ram Nishad and others), under Section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as an Act).
(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is the father-in-law of the opposite party no.2, who had moved an application under Section 12 of the Act against the revisionist. The husband of opposite party no.2 expired on 27.7.2008 and since then the opposite party no.2 is residing at her parental house. The opposite party no.2 had also moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for claiming maintenance allowance. Hence the institution of case under Section 12 of the Act is malicious intent to grab the property of the revisionist over which the opposite party no.2 has no right or title legally and factually both. But the court below in a mechanical manner without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case granted interim maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and her three children and further directed that the opposite party no.2 shall also reside along with her father-in-law and the in-laws will not cause any hindrance in her peaceful living in the house. The revisionist was also refrained from causing any mental or physical cruelty which comes within the purview of Domestic Violence Act. The revisionist aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 9.7.2014 passed by the learned Magistrate preferred the appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge has affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court by order dated 7.4.2015. The order passed by the two courts below are absolutely unjust, illegal and against the provision of law as well as against the dictum of the Apex Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra, 2007 AIR(SC) 1118 wherein the Apex Court has made observation with regard to the shared house which is being quoted here as under: "As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a 'shared household' would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband Amit Batra is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant No. 2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a 'shared household'.";