Shiv Kumar Trivedi Vs. Smt. Uma Trivedi - Court Judgment

1 Cr.R. No.1517 of 2011 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR SB: HON. SHRI N.K.GUPTA,J CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1517/2011 Shiv Kumar Trivedi. -Vs- Smt. Uma Trivedi. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Harjas Singh Chhabra and Shri Jasmeet Hora, Advocates for the applicant. Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri Yogesh Soni, Advocate for the respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER

(Passed on the 21st day of February, 2013) By this criminal revision the applicant has challenged the order dated 30.7.2011 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No.184/2011 whereby the order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the JMFC (Shri Manot Kumar Sharma) Bhopal in MJ.No.15/2010 was modified that the applicant shall vacate the entire premises belonging to the respondent.

2. The brief facts relating to the present revision are that the respondent Uma Trivedi has moved an application under Sections 12, 18, 19 and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2005”.). It 2 Cr.R. No.1517 of 2011 was stated in the application that initially the respondent Uma Trivedi was residing in House No.59/3A of Saket Nagar, Bhopal along with her husband and children. She had two sons and two daughters. Out of them, two daughters were residing in their husband’s house, whereas younger son was working at abroad, and therefore he was not residing at Bhopal. The applicant was residing in the same house along with his wife. But after sometime both of them started making harassment to the respondent Uma Trivedi and they threatened the respondent Uma Trivedi and her husband that they would be implicated in the matter of dowry demand etc. The house was constructed by the earning of her husband whereas the applicant and his wife etc. took the possession of the entire house and the respondent was thrown out of the house.

3. The learned JMFC Bhopal after considering the entire evidence adduced by the parties accepted the application of the respondent Uma Trivedi and a relief was granted under Section 19 of the Act, 2005 that the applicant shall keep one room for his residence and he would handover the entire possession of the remaining house of the respondent and he would 3 Cr.R. No.1517 of 2011 make no interference in the possession of the respondent in future. Also a relief was granted under Section 20 of the Act, 2005 that a compensation of Rs.5,000/- be paid to the respondent Uma Trivedi. The applicant did not prefer any appeal against that order, on the contrary the respondent Uma Trivedi preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Bhopal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal vide judgment dated 30.7.2011 modified the order passed by the learned JMFC Bhopal and directed to handover the possession of the remaining room to the respondent Uma Trivedi within two months.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. It is admitted that the applicant did not prefer any appeal against the order passed by the learned JMFC Bhopal, and therefore it appears that he was not aggrieved with that order. He is aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal, and therefore it is to be discussed in the present matter about the one room only.

6. As per the evidence adduced by the parties, it is apparent that the applicant is running a grocery 4 Cr.R. No.1517 of 2011 shop in separate, though the capital was given by his father. It is also admitted that the house in dispute was constructed by applicant's father by his own income, and therefore it is self earned property of his father. If it was a parental house, then the applicant could claim his share in the ancestral property, but since it was a self earned property of his father, then he has no lien to reside in any room of that house. Under such circumstances, the relief which was granted by the learned JMFC, Bhopal under Section 19 of the Act, 2005 should have been granted for the entire house.

7. According to the applicant, the respondent and her husband were harassing the wife of the applicant for demand of dowry etc, whereas the respondent claims that the applicant and his wife were threatening them that they would implicate the respondent and her husband in the matter of dowry demand. Under such circumstances, it is not necessary for the applicant to reside in the same house on which he has no lien or any right. If he has his own business, then he can arrange for his own house or a rented house. It was not the obligation of the respondent to keep the applicant in any portion of her house, where the applicant and his wife are making the nuisance 5 Cr.R. No.1517 of 2011 which comes under the overt-act of “domestic violence”.. Under such circumstances, if the learned Additional Sessions Judge has modified the order passed by the learned JMFC Bhopal, then no illegality or perversity has been committed by the appellate Court.

8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicant cannot be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed.

9. A copy of this order be sent to both the Court below with their records for information. (N.K.Gupta) Judge 21.02.2013 Ansari.