- (1.) THE question that arises in this application under Section 482 of Cr. P. C is whetherthe petitioner herein who was not a party to the proceeding being misc. Case No. 57 of 2008 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the Act) wherein the learned ACJM at durgapur upon an application of the opposite party herein under Section 12 of ^ the said Act, passed an order on 3rd of July, 2008 granting right of residence against her husband who was the opposite party before the learned Magistrate has right of appeal under Section 29 of the said Act or not.
(2.) THE petitioner who is the mother of opposite party No. 1 before the learned Magistrate contends that since she was not a party to the proceeding but is aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate because of the alleged fact that the house in which the right of residence has been granted to her daughter-in-law does not belong to his son is competent enough to file this application under Section 482 of Cr. P. C invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court to have the order impugned nullified as the right of appeal does not belong to her in view of the definition of the word "aggrieved person" as it occurs in clause (a) of Section 2 of the said Act. The second branch of argument of the petitioner herein is based on the decision of the Hon'bie Supreme Court in S. R. Batra and Anr. v. Tarun Batra as reported in (2006)4 Crimes 433 (SC), wherein their Lordships negated the wife's claim for residence in the house belonging to her mother-in-law.
(3.) THE opposite party before the learned Magistrate contended in her application under Section 12 of the act that she resided with her husband at rahmatnagar under PS Hirapur, District Bardwan which according to the wife was "shared household" as defined in clause (s) to Section 2 of the Act.;