1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3188 OF 2009 Urmila Sunil Patil ...Applicant. v. Sunil Kisan Patil ...Respondent. Mr. Rajaram B. Deshmukh, adv. For the Applicant. Mr. Shrikant Cheulkar i/by Umesh R.Mankapure, advs. For the Respondent No.1. Ms. M.H.Mhatre, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 22, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Respondent is husband of the applicant. They married in 2003. Marriage was performed at Karad, District: Satara. At that time, husband was in defence services and was posted at Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh. Later on, he was transferred to Mumbai. Applicant was living with him at Jabalpur as well as at Bombay. Relations between the two got strained and since February, 2005 they are living separately. Applicant had filed H.M.P.No. 150/05 for restitution of conjugal rights. That petition was decreed on 31/3/2007 but there has been no restitution of conjugal rights and admittedly, husband has already filed a petition for divorce, which is 2 pending before the C.J.S.D., Karad, District: Satara. Applicant filed a miscellaneous criminal application no.52/08 under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act before the C.J.M., Satara. After hearing the parties, the learned C.J.M. directed the respondent/husband to secure the alternate accommodation for the applicant at Satara and to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- per month towards the rent and also directed him to refrain from committing any domestic violence. The learned C.J.M. also granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month. That order was challenged by the wife in criminal appeal no.153/08. The learned Sessions Judge, Satara maintained the order passed by the C.J.M. therefore, she has filed this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant stated that respondent is living at Mumbai, where they last resided together, therefore, she is entitled to live in shared house and as such, direction be given to the respondent to allow her to live in his house at Bombay particularly in view of the decree for restitution of the conjugal rights. For one or the other reasons, decree for restitution of the conjugal rights could not be executed and implemented and admittedly the husband has filed petition for divorce which is still pending. From this it is clear that since 3 February, 2005, relations between the two are strained and it is not possible for them to live together. Admittedly, husband is living in a flat consisting of one bedroom, hall and kitchen. As there is only one bedroom in the flat , it is not possible for the husband to make separate arrangement for the wife in the same house. Parties are originally residents of District: Satara where applicant/wife had filed application for maintenance as well as under the Domestic Violence Act and naturally, the Courts below passed the appropriate order to secure the alternative accommodation at Satara for her where she resides and the husband is required to pay rent. Merely because the applicant wants to shift to Mumbai, husband cannot be directed to make arrangement for her residence at Bombay. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, I find no fault in the impugned orders. 3 For the aforesaid reasons, application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)