Judgment:
ORDER
N.K. Mody, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25-9-2008 passed by IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Cri. Appeal No. 51/2008, whereby judgment dated 25-1-2008 passed by CJM, Ratlam in Cri. Case No. 1336/2007, where the interim application filed by the respondents under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was allowed and the interim directions issued by learned Trial Court were further modified, present petition has been filed.
2. Short facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 is the husband of respondent No. 1 and petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 have adopted respondent No. 2. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 20-7-87 at Nagpur. Petitioner No. 1 is a retired employee of Railways. Prior to it petitioner No. 1 was married to Nirmalabai from whom petitioner No. 1 was blessed with a son Lalit petitioner No. 2. Divorce took place between the petitioner No. 1 and Nirmalabai on 21-1-87 in H.M.A. Case No. 84-A/85. Petitioner No. 3 is wife of petitioner No. 2 while petitioner No. 4 is son of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 2 is Homeopathy Doctor by profession and is in Govt. job at Ratlam. The age difference between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 is more than 18 years. Probably it is the main cause for dispute between the parties.
3. Petition was filed by respondent No. 1 before the learned Court below under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which shall be referred hereinafter as 'Act', wherein various allegations were made against the petitioners. Alongwith the petition an application for interim directions was filed, which was allowed and in appeal filed by the respondent No. 1, which was allowed in part, the interim directions issued by the Trial Court were further modified. No appeal was filed by the petitioners against the interim directions issued by the learned Trial Court. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, whereby the directions given by the learned Trial Court were modified.
4. Undisputedly, there is a house at Gandhi Nagar, Ratlam in which petitioners and respondents are residing. This house is bearing House No. 530/1, which contains four bedrooms. Petitioner No. 2 is also in the services of Railways and was residing in a separate house which is situated at Vinoba Nagar, Ratlam at a distance of one and a half kilometer from Gandhi Nagar. This house was purchased by the petitioner No. 1 in the name of petitioner No. 3. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were living there. Later on because of subsequent developments petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 also started to live at Gandhi Nagar while house at Vinoba Nagar is locked. It appears that after shifting of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 at Gandhi Nagar, Ratlam, the dispute started.
5. The successful efforts were made to sort out the dispute amicably as it was the family dispute, so that the parties can live happily. Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners argued at length and submits that the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be set aside. Learned Counsel submits that no order could have been passed against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 as they are women and minor. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioners are ready to provide the alternative accommodation to the respondents.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents submit that direction given by the learned Courts below which was modified by the Appellate Court requires no interference. It is submitted that the petition be dismissed.
7. Interim order passed by the learned Trial Court in favour of the respondents whereby it was directed that petitioners should not cause any domestic violence and should not cause any interference and also it was directed that petitioners shall not cause any obstruction in the residence of the respondents in the house situated at Gandhi Nagar, Ratlam. The order has been modified by the Appellate Court upon the instance of respondent No. 2 with a direction that petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 shall not reside at Gandhi Nagar and shall vacate the same forthwith failing which the learned Trial Court shall ensure the compliance.
8. From perusal of the record it is evident that vide order dated 25-1-2008 CJM, Ratlam has directed that the petitioners shall not create any obstruction in the residence of respondents' house situated at Gandhi Nagar, Ratlam. This order has not been challenged by the petitioners before the learned Appellate Court, therefore, this interim order attained finality.
9. So far as the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is concerned, the interim order was modified by the Appellate Court. It was further directed that petitioner No. 2 to 4 shall not reside in the house situated at Gandhi Nagar, Ratlam and shall vacate the same with immediate effect. It is only these directions, which is under challenged.
10. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has come in force w.e.f. 13-9-2005. The enactment is to provide more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Sub-section (a) of Section 2 of the Act defines 'aggrieved person'. According to which '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. Respondent 2, who is the son of respondent No. 1 has also filed the application before the learned Court below. Since respondent No. 2 is not a woman, therefore, no application could have been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, who is minor. Sub-section (q) of Section 2 defines the word 'respondent' according to which 'respondent' means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act. Since petitioner No. 3, who happens to be the wife of petitioner No. 2 is a female, therefore, the petitioner No. 3 cannot be put in the category of respondent, therefore, again the petition is not maintainable against the petitioner No. 3. Sub-section (o) of Section 2 of the Act deals with 'protection order'. According to which order made in terms of Section 18 is the 'protection order'.
11. Thus, Section 18 of the Act empowers the Court to pass a protection order in favour of aggrieved person and prohibits the respondent from:
(a) committing any act of domestic violence;
(b) aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence;
(c) entering the place of employment of the aggrieved person or, if the person aggrieved is a child, its school or any other place frequented by the aggrieved person;
(e) alienating any assets; operating bank lockers or bank accounts used or held or enjoyed by both the parties jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or singly by the respondent, including her stridhan or any other property held either jointly by the parties or separately by them without the leave of the Magistrate;
(f) causing violence to the respondents, other relatives or any person who give the aggrieved person assistance from domestic violence;
(g) committing any other act as specified in the protection.
12. Thus, Section 18 of the Act provides powers to the Court to pass an appropriate protective order in favour of aggrieved person. Enough evidence is on record to show that the petitioner No. 1 is an old man and is also sick. The sketch map of the house situated at Gandhi Nagar, Ratlam is filed, which is not disputed by any of the parties. According to which it contains four rooms, which are numbered as 1, 2, 3, 4. There are two kitchens, out of which one kitchen is shown in possession of petitioner No. 1. To protect the interest of the respondent No. 1 till final disposal of the petition following directions are being issued:
(1) Respondent No. 1 shall remain in room, which is shown as hall with kitchen and also marked as No. 2 and room No. 4 exclusively while petitioner No. 1 shall remain in a room, which is marked as room Nos. 1 and 3 with kitchen. Map shall be the part of the order.
(2) Since petitioner No. 2 is also in possession of a house situated at Vinoba Nagar, Ratlam and the fact that prior to the dispute petitioner No. 2 was living in that house with his family, therefore, petitioner No. 2 shall live in that house.
(3) Respondent No. 1 shall take full care of petitioner No. 1 as the petitioner No. 1 is a senior citizen and is sick.
(4) Petitioner No. 2 shall also take care of petitioner No. 1 during the day hours but shall not stay in the house situated at Gandhi Nagar, Ratlam during night hours, i.e., between 9.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.
(5) Learned Trial Court shall proceed with the case and conclude the trial at the earliest within a period of three months.
(6) After holding the enquiry the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to pass fresh and final order without being influenced by the order passed by this Court or interim orders passed by learned Courts below.
With the aforesaid modifications, the petition stands disposed of. Parties are directed to remain present before the learned Court below on 26-10-2009. It is directed that record of the learned Courts below be sent back forthwith.