CRR No.2103 of 2012(O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRR No.2103 of 2012(O&M) Date of decision: 24.2.2014 Baljit Kaur and others ..Petitioners Versus Hardeep Kaur ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahavir S.
Chauhan Present: Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Nitin Thatai, Advocate for the respondent.
****** Mahavir S.Chauhan, J.(Oral) Hardeep Kaur, the respondent herein, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claiming various reliefs.
She also filed an application for interim relief.
However, her prayer did not find favour with the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Khanna and accordingly her application for interim relief was dismissed and she was denied interim relief vide order dated 29.9.2010.
To challenge the order dated 29.9.2010, the respondent filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereupon the Appellate Court vide order dated 10.5.2012, allowed ` 700/- P.M.as rent to the respondent, by observing as under:- Kant Nirmal 2014.03.03 11:23 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh CRR No.2103 of 2012(O&M) 2 “ Otherwise also, after the death of her husband, she could not have possibly occupied the Army accommodation where she was earlier staying during the posting of her husband and her matrimonial home was since at village Rurka, she was apparently entitled to ask for interim relief at least qua that.
It has since further come in her allegations that she was not allowed to enter her matrimonial home and further that she was maltreated and manhandled at the time when her husband's last rites were being performed, it seems appropriate if instead of passing interim residence order, she is allowed some amount to be paid to her as rent as an interim measure as per Section 19 (1) (f) of the Act.”
.
To challenge to the order dated 10.5.2012, the instant petition has been brought by the petitioneRs.namely, Baljit Kaur, (mother-in-law).Tejpal Singh (father-in-law).Harvinder Singh, (brother-in-law) and Narinderjit Kaur, sister-in-law (Nanad) of respondent Hardeep Kaur.
The respondent is contesting the petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
It is strongly argued on behalf of the petitioners that the house wherein petitioners are residing, belongs to petitioner Tejpal Singh's father Gurdev Singh, and his brother and in that house, husband of the respondent did not have any share and that after receiving the retiral benefits in respect of her husband, Kant Nirmal 2014.03.03 11:23 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh CRR No.2103 of 2012(O&M) 3 respondent is not entitled to residence in the said house, more so when the house does not belong to the petitioneRs.Learned counsel for the respondent, however, controverts this submission.
On hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, I find that the learned Appellate Court has rightly allowed rent at the rate of `700/- P.M.to the complainant/respondent perhaps in view of the fact that though the house in which the petitioners are residing does not belong to them but inspite of that the complainant/respondent deserves to have a shelter to live in, in view of the fact that after death of her husband, she is not entitled to live in the Government accommodation that might have been allotted to her husband.
However, while passing the aforesaid order, the learned Appellate Court has lost sight of the fact that petitioners Baljit Kaur, (mother-in-law).Harvinder Singh,(brother-in-law) and Narinderjit Kaur, (sister-in-law of the complainant/respondent) are not obliged to provide to the complainant/respondent residence or to pay rent in lieu thereof.
However, petitioner Tejpal Singh (father-in-law of the complainant/respondent) cannot run away from his responsibility to provide a shelter or to pay rent in lieu thereof to the complainant/respondent.
In view of the above, petition qua Baljit Kaur, Harvinder Singh and Narinderjit Kaur is accepted and is dismissed with regard to petitioner Tejpal Singh.
In the consequence, petitioner Tejpal Singh shall be liable Kant Nirmal 2014.03.03 11:23 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh CRR No.2103 of 2012(O&M) 4 to pay rent to the tune of ` 700/- P.M.to the complainant/respondent as ordered by the Appellate Court.
With the aforesaid modification in the order of Appellate Court, the revision petition is disposed of.
February 24,2014 (MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN) nk JUDGE Kant Nirmal 2014.03.03 11:23 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh