IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED 'I"HiS THE 3313 DAY OF' AUGUST 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR,JI}S'I'ICE SUBHASH B.Ar:fi" ' '- '
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONHNO.853'i'2€i1_{i 0'
BETWEEN:
Murali Mohan
S/0 Late Ratndas
Aged about 33, R/at No.35,
Kempegowda Layout . _ --
Laggere, Bangalore ~ 40, ' 3. . V" ~ .. PETITIONER
(By Sri.Anii Shekar K,_s., Adv,}__:0" '
AND:
1. R.Sur:1itraA':lVi3t3'\.}i,.':".1',_I,!_o magi; Mohan
Aged:V_aboutyea¥rS -. ' --
2 . Kum . N andini, ' D 0. jSuVr'n_i_t'ra "D evi
Aged abou_t"4,yea1fs " A
Both are re'si_diI1gvat.No.55.
10*}? Cross, J .0.-1\§agarV,
Rajajfrxagar '
. 'Bangalore;-86. .. RESPONDENTS
{By0'Sri}'0K,Mii1;£'_fiyf, ;é_&d'x}.}
Tins. E3rir.11"inal Revision Petition is filed under Section
"~?i;f39'F»{1] reativwith 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment
.1 passexfin C.Mis.N0.794/O8 dt. 27/6/2009 on the fiie of VII
Ad'd1.;V .CN;M. Bangalore and dismiss the complaint filed by the
respondent/petitio.ner in C.Mis,No.794/O8 flied before vs AddE.,
Bangalore.
This Revision Petition coming on for admission this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner. who is the husband of respondent No.1_..and
father of respondent No.2, has filed this petition,
the judgment passed in Criminai Appeal .
315i March 2010 on the file of Fast Track__Court’§i”,” uh’
City, confirming the order of the V11
Cr1.Misc.No.794/2008 dated 27.s;:é_o09.
2. Respondents had flied an appiicafion under Serition 12
of the Protection of Womenvfi’oV.ri1_ Violence Act {‘Act’ for
short} interalia claiming protection order the monetary
benefit, sharedv after hearing both the
sides and hased on’ ordered for maintenance of
Rs.4,OOOA/.–_ per tneirespondent No.1 till her life time
‘per to respondent No.2 til} her marriage.
“~*_. towards the compensation and directed
petitioner.itolgpirovide a residence to the respondents in a
shared hionsehold with minimum requirement either in ground
floor Within 90 days. This order Was calied in
it __qr11.’esAti;0n’Air1 Criminal Appeai. The appellate court modified the
order. instead of Rs.-4,00(‘)/– maintenance to the respondent
No.1, it is reduced to Rs.3,000/- and similarly it is reduced to
Rs.3,000/– to respondent No.2 also. As against this order,___the
petitioner has filed this revision petition.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitionerj”~ V’
submitted that, the shared household by
application is an exclusive property
petitioner and such house canno:t~l..Vbe lltiejatedu
household under the definition of ‘2,c1ause’ ofithe Act.
In support of his contentionllhe decision of the
Apex Court reported_:1n.V_.VOlC:i-.’I’ AIR 2007 SC
3318 in the ANOTHER –vs–
SMT.TARU1\lA___vBAflT<iii;::v_ _an'._c1- that, in identical
circumstances'; the observed as under:
“29. As reglar.ds’Sectionp 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion
the wife isonly entitied “to claim a right to residence in
ashared household, and a ‘shared household’ would
only mean the belonging to or taken on rent by
. husband, or the house which belongs to the joint
“‘_farnily«._hof Vlwhigrh the husband is a member. The
‘ . propei’ty_~vin question in the present case neither belongs
to Amit Baird nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a
joint fanny property of which the husband Amit Batra
is a~~merr1ber. It is the exclusive property of appellant
A. .No.2,’mother of Amit Baird Hence it cannot be called a
_ ‘shared household.”
it .:i{l7.e.15:\pex Court held that the property standing in the name of
it “‘1iiotl1er–in~law cannot be treated as a shared household.
s.
4. In this case, it is not in dispute that the shared
household mentioned by the complainant is the property
standing in the name of rnother–in–laW of respondent No:.l;
it is neither standing in her husband’s name nor .
property nor was it a joint family property,’ xrieiif ” ”
I find that the judgment of the Apex
Section 17 of the Act squarely appiies_yto this lcasg if
5. Insofar as monetary benefitli_lis-l.conceI’hedl,: appellate
court taking into consideration iyciivcurpnstances has fixed
the reasonable monetary justification to
interfere with they saidgeefinding.
Accordingly, the partly allowed. Insofar as
shared h-o.useho1d_:l is..v”con-cerned, the order of the learned
{Magistilate iii. CrLMisc.l\?o’;7v94/2008 dated 27.6.2009 confirmed
in’Qi’inji11a;l”«..g§ppeall_;.No.565/2009 dated 31st March 2010 is
mhereby “The order of monetary benefit as ordered by
-.l.l.”_f:..«the,learnedlviagistrate modified by the learned Sessions Judge
«.i_s”Whereb’y confirmed. However, liberty is reserved to the
respogndents to seek such other alternative accommodation as
pennissible in law. If any such application is filed by the
respondents, the Eearned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the
same as early as possible.
JUDGE f
KNM/~