125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-22394 of 2014 Date of decision: July 08, 2014 Santosh and others ...Petitioners Versus Renu ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Ms.Payel Mehta, Advocate for the petitioneRs.**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioners Santosh, Jagdish Chander and Pooja have filed this petition against Renu respondent under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for setting aside the order dated 09.01.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala and order dated 20.05.2014 passed by learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Patiala upon an application filed by the respondent under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
It is mainly stated in the petition that petitioners No.1 and 2 are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the respondent respectively.
Petitioner No.3 is daughter of petitioners No.1 and 2 and is sister-in- law of respondent, who is staying with her parents along with her minor daughter.
Respondent got married to Amit Wadhawan, son of VINEET GULATI201408.01 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-22394 of 2014 -2- petitioners No.1 and 2 on 10.03.2007 and out of this wedlock two daughters were born who are aged about 6 and 4½ yeaRs.It is further stated in the petition that soon after their wedding, father of respondent started making un-warranted interference into the family affairs of the respondent and her husband and intimidate the petitioneRs.It is also stated in the petition that the impugned orders have been passed in the customary manner without appreciating the merits of the case and without application of judicial mind.
The Courts have also ignored the fact that petitioners No.1 and 2 are old persons and respondent herself is a lady having source who is already earning to the tune of over `20,000/- per month.
I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioneRs.At the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners only argued on one point that petitioners No.1 and 2, who are mother- in-law and father-in-law respectively and petitioner No.3, who is sister- in-law, cannot be held in any way to pay the amount of rent of `2000/- to the respondent.
I have gone through the order dated 09.01.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala.
The Court has granted interim maintenance to the present respondent, which is to be payable by her husband, who is not a party in the present case.
Husband of the present respondent has not challenged that order.
Therefore, the order of maintenance is not passed against the present petitioners and they are not aggrieved persons from that order.
The only directions given against the present petitioners by the learned VINEET GULATI201408.01 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-22394 of 2014 -3- Magistrate are that they are to allow the respondent to reside in the matrimonial home and if the respondent is not allowed to reside in the matrimonial home, then in the alternative, she will be entitled for `2000/- per month for alternative residence from the date of that order.
Nowhere, learned Magistrate has stated that `2000/- is to be paid by present petitioneRs.The only directions to present petitioners are that they will allow respondent to reside in the matrimonial home.
Therefore, from the impugned order, it is clear that nowhere the Court has held that present petitioners will pay `2000/- per month to the respondent.
Furthermore, I have gone through the concurrent findings of Courts below regarding grant of interim maintenance and right of residence of the respondent in the matrimonial home/shared household and these are as per law.
Nothing has been pointed out as to how these findings are illegal or against the record.
The orders passed by both the Courts below are correct and as per law and no illegality has been committed while passing the impugned ordeRs.Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed.
July 08, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI201408.01 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh