residing in the house in question since her date of marriage. Her specific case is that the husband deserted her and is living another lady. Hence in the Court was not justified in granting respondent husband. 'of ad'
Commissioner is concerned.;i”‘shejéxvoutd that in
the given set of circurnstanc’esi”‘t:o as to who is
residing in ought to have
been appo1=inted’;» C” ” if
Learned’fcounsei””appearing for the respondent
husband “suppovrtsauthedznpugned order. He submits
thatignv the cause .t_i__tl__e,of the present proceedings as well
proc_eedings initiated under Section 125 of
if-?r:_ocedure Code, the address given by the
IVpetitioner:_vv1′<fe is altogether different than the one where
'A Cfftheff respondent husband is residing. He further submits
that when the husband was not at home, the petitioner
/
K'
forcibly broke open the lock and entered the prernises.
Hence justifies the application as well as the ordcrl
5. I have perused the
Apparently, the vexed question isastop if if
at the particular point of time
It is no doubt true that theVlad;dressA.of._theVAparties’in; the if
proceedings under V :”Section”‘ l ‘the weflrirninal
Procedure Code as well plriéfldffiljtlfljflroceedings is
different, as well as the
respondent re’sui.dirigVf_– ‘V.-1tW different places.
Incidentally, ,vth:=5:”-vyife”is:”staying behind the Durgamba
Temple andt the _ is staying in front of the
terraplev._”Indeed’~as____to whether the petitioner wife has
the house of the respondent where he
Was7resid’ing1’ is a matter which is required to be
considered during the course of trial. As of now, the
inat’erial placed is not enough to record a finding
ychether the petitioner is residing in the house of which
X
the respondent husband claims to reside or whether the
petitioner has trespassed into the house .«
petitioner.
6. Be that as it may, the
both of them are residing’ differlent
impugned order is not terms,
inasmuch as, the has not
addressed herself to Only on the
basis of _’–:tit3%e: one cannot
come the petitioner has
trespassed where the respondent is
residing oia_for_tliata that the petitioner has been
resid-i.r1g_ii’inp “–s.a;}_dgil10use right from the day of her
‘ma1riag.e’.’a “Indeed, in this regard some more material
Was”requéired the learned family Judge to come to the
‘~_conclu.s;ion and grant the application of the respondent.
A “:iflixatfin.g regard to the fact that the order is not at all
satisfactory, I am of the View that the impugned order
1/
‘/
insofar as the application filed by the respondent is
liable to be interfered. Insofar as the appointment’
Commissioner is concerned, the order:,:”
circumstances, cannot be faulte’d.~-,
circumstances, it was incumbentiluponl’
to record evidence in this lithe V
parties to produce ‘to establish their
respective contention. Indeed,
the family 1:_insté.ad”:.liiolif”–fiohsidering these
“matter on merit and
wayV,llViyhether the respondent
is entitled’ “the ground of cruelty and
desertion.
if ‘ V. following order is passed:
“7′..__{1)’}5et.i\tionfis allowed in part.
order on the application filed by the
petitioner for appointment of commissioner
stands confirmed. Insofar as the application
/
X
filed by the respondent seeking reentry is fl
concerned is set aside. The matter is remitted
to the family Court for fresh adjudication”.the
application filed by the respondent. A
(3) It is desirable that instead it
enquiry on the applicati-onll ‘~ .by”
respondent, the familyflourt the V
proceedings itself al’oné.:’:;yi”th’A thelvapplications
Within an outer .AA.ino11ths from the
date I
(4) “is permitted to take
‘ an inventory in the
‘pre’senc.e: th”eV.iu-rivsdictional police.
Petition hvdislposed of accordingly.
. issuedflmand made absolute to the extent
A above.
Sd/9
IUDGE