ORDER
S.C. Sinho, J.
1. These two revisions against the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 501/07 (Razzak Khan and 2 Ors. v. Smt. Shahnaz Khan) and Criminal Appeal No. 595/07 (Smt. Shahnaz Khan v. Razzak Khan and 2 Ors.) dated 19-12-2007, passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur arising out of the order passed in Complaint Case No. 23/2007 order dated 29-9-2007 by learned JMFC Jabalpur in proceeding under Section 9(b), 37(2)(c) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'Act 2005') whereby these revisions have been filed before this Court.
2. This is undisputed that Ramzan Khan and Smt. Shahnaz Khan had taken divorce on 3-5-2007 in presence of witnesses. Razzak Khan, Rehman Khan and Ramzan Khan are real brothers and Smt. Shahnaz Khan is the daughter of real sister of the applicants whose first marriage has been performed with Musarraf Khan and out of first wedlock Master Shoaib was born who is presently 16 years of age. After lapse of 12 years of the death of her first husband, Shahnaz Khan has performed Nikah with Ramzan Khan on 19-3-2003 and both of them were living in a rented house. Ramzan Khan after the death of his father Rasool Khan, on 7-2-2006 started living in ancestral house with his two brothers along with his wife Shahnaz Khan.
3. The Shahnaz Khan filed a complaint under Section 9(b), 37(2)(C) of the 'Act 2005' for claiming relief under Section 18 to 20 before JMFC Jabalpur. The JMFC vide order dated 29-9-2007 granted following reliefs to Smt. Shahnaz Khan.
1. Smt. Shahnaz Khan is entitled for sum of Rs. 16,439/- as expense of delivery and medicines from Ramzan Khan.
2. Ramzan Khan shall not restrain Smt. Shahnaz Khan for going to service (work place) nor he will snatched her salary.
3. Ramzan Khan shall give Rs. 2000/- per month towards the maintenance to Smt. Shahnaz Khan and son Gazi Khan.
4. Ramzan Khan shall not assault and abuse the applicant (Smt. Shahnaz Khan)
5. Shri Ramzan Khan shall pay necessary medical expenses in relation to newly born baby.
6. Protection Officer was directed to ensure the delivery of the Stridhan as per annexed to the complaint in his presence.
4. In Criminal Appeal No. 595/07, learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge modified relief to Smt. Shahnaz Khan and directed Protection Officer for providing accommodation in the ancestral house of husband under Section 19(1)(f) of the 'Act 2005' and further granted Rs. 500/- per month maintenance in favour of the foster son Shoaib Khan.
5. Learned Advocate of Shri Razzak Khan, Rahman Khan and Ramzan Khan argued in detailed that Smt. Shahnaz Khan is working as a Clerk in MPSRTC and comfortably living in her parental house with her sons. She is in a better financial position whereas Ramzan Khan is a photo copy mechanic and living with brothers and hardly able to maintain himself. However, Shri Usmani has conceded that even now he is prepared to pay 500/- per month to Smt. Shahnaz Khan and children. Learned Advocate has further argued that it will not be proper in view of the fact that Shahnaz Khan after divorce will live in the shared house with Ramzan Khan and she is living very comfortably in her ancestral house with her parents and brothers.
6. However, in Criminal Revision No. 112/2008, Smt. Shahnaz Khan has demanded enhancement of the quantum of maintenance regarding Gazi Khan from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 2000/- and regarding foster son Shoaib Khan from Rs. 500/-to Rs. 1000/- per month from the date of application and also demanded adequate compensation in terms of Section 20 and 22 of 'Act 2005'. Shri Imtiaz Hussain learned Counsel for Smt. Shahnaz Khan has argued that looking to the price index meager relief is granted to her and children. Therefore, this amount should be enhanced.
7. Both the learned Counsels were heard at length.
8. It is admitted position that Ramzan Khan has given divorce to Smt. Shahnaz Khan on 3-5-2007. Smt. Shahnaz Khan is working as a clerk in the MPSTRC at Jabalpur and living in her parental house.
9. Learned Advocate of Razzak Khan and others Shri Ahdullaha Usmani argued that because Smt. Shahnaz Khan is working as a clerk, therefore, her financial position is much better than her husband who is casually working as a photo copy mechanic and suffering from heart problem. The learned Appellate Court after considering the evidence produced by both the parties held that Smt. Shahnaz Khan and her children are entitled for Rs. 2500/- per month relief. Shri Usmani, learned Counsel argued that applicant Smt. Shahnaz Khan did not refer name of her foster son Shoaib Khan in original application before JMFC therefore, learned Appellate Court without any cause granted Rs. 500/- maintenance to Gazi Khan. It is admitted position that Gazi Khan is foster son of Smt. Shahnaz Khan and Razzak Khan and strict rule of pleadings are not applicable in proceedings under the 'Act 2005'. Shri Imtiaz Hussain, learned Advocate of Shahnaz Khan has argued at length that looking to the present price index quantum of monthly maintenance of Rs. 1000/- to Gazi Khan and Rs. 500/- to Shoaib Khan should be enhanced and further adequate compensation be granted to Smt. Shahnaz Khan.
10. It is admitted position that Smt. Shahnaz Khan is working as a clerk in MPSRTC, Jabalpur whereas her husband Ramzan Khan is a photocopy mechanic and not getting regular salary, he is also suffering from heart ailment. In these circumstances, both the Courts below after appreciation of evidence has given findings of income, regarding financial status of the parties. This Court is of the view that the monthly maintenance granted by learned Appellate Court is justified.
11. Shri Ahdullaha Usmani learned Advocate for Razzak Khan and others has vehemently argued that if divorcee wife Smt. Shahnaz Khan will stay in the shared house with applicant then it will create many problems. Further Smt. Shahnaz Khan is living comfortably with her brother in her parental house and therefore, the Revisional Court has committed a grave mistake in ordering for providing accommodation to her in the house of husband and brothers. He has further argued that because Ramzan Khan has given divorce to Smt. Shahnaz Khan therefore, jurisdiction under 'Act 2005' is not attracted.
12. It is clear that applicant and his two brother are staying in a three-storied house at Jabalpur. In this regard it will be proper to reproduce Section 17(1) of the Act of 2005.
17. (1) Right to reside in a shared household.
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared house hold, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.
This Section lays down that irrespective of any contrary proviso in any other law, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household and the aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household by the respondent except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Further Section 2 of 'Act 2005' defines 'aggrieved persons' and 'domestic relationship' and 'shared household' as given below:
2. Definitions.-
(a) 'aggrieved person' means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;
(f) 'domestic relationship' means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;
(s) 'shared household' means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.
13. Thus, it is clear that every women in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared house except in accordance with the procedure established by law therefore, this argument of applicant has no force that divorcee wife Shahnaz Khan has no right to reside in an ancestral house of husband or such living will amount to 'Haram'.
14. Further as held by Apex Court in S.R. Batra v. Smt. Tarun Batra Civil Appeal No. 5837/06 (SC), decided on 15-12-2006, it is made clear that the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against husband Ramzan Khan and she is entitled a right to residence in a shared house would only mean house belonging to husband Ramzan Khan or house which belongs to joint family of which husband is a member.
15. If circumstances required so, divorcee wife Shahnaz Khan in view of Section 19(1)(f) of the 'Act 2005' in the alternative husband Ramzan Khan is directed to secure same level of alternate accommodation for Shahnaz Khan as enjoyed by her in the shared house with the help of Protection Officer or he will pay Rs. 900/- per month rent to Smt. Shahnaz Khan from date of Trial Court order i.e., 29-9-2007.
16. Suffice it to say that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, has not committed any error of law and fact in impugned Criminal Appeal No. 501/2007 and 595/2007, dated 19-12-2007. This Court does not find any such illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order to interfere in these revision petitions except modification as provided in Section 19(1)(f) of the 'Act 2005'.
With this modification, both revisions are dismissed.