HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3595 OF 2010 Dated : 09.08.2010. Between : K.Hari Priya & another … Petitioners-Respondents a n d The State of A.P.& others … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3595 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioners-respondents being aggrieved by the order dated 06.04.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.41 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2010 by the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Initially, the petitioner-wife, approached the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, with Crl.M.P.No.848 of 2009 in D.V.C.No.2 of 2009 seeking relief of residential order under section 19 (1) (a) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘the Act’), upon which, the learned Magistrate by common order dated 10.07.2009 directed the second respondent-husband to provide residence to the wife and her child in flat No.S1, Indra Prastha Apartments, West Mumbalam, Chennai, apart from granting other reliefs in favour of the wife. As against the said order, husband filed the impugned petition seeking suspension of residential order submitting that the house, against which residential order was passed, belongs to his father. Petitioner also submitted that he is having another property standing in his name and he is ready to provide accommodation to the wife and child in the said property. In support of his contention, he filed various documents like rental agreement, settlement deed, property tax receipts, etc. After careful examination of entire material, the learned Sessions Judge passed in the impugned order modifying the residential order granted by the learned Magistrate directing the husband to provide alternate accommodation to the wife. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by the wife. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the property against which the residential order was passed is not the exclusive property of the father of the husband, but it is a joint family property. As such, the Sessions Judge erred in modifying the residential order passed by the learned Magistrate and finally prayed to set aside the impugned order. Learned counsel for the husband submitted that the property, in which alternate accommodation was proposed to be arranged, exclusively belongs to the husband. With the modification of residential order no prejudice will be caused to the wife. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition. This Court carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge wherein at para No.6 he specifically observed that the contents of affidavit in DVC No.2 of 2009 before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, and counter in O.P.No.3223 of 2008 before the I Additional Family Court, Chennai, revealed that in pursuance of residential order dated 10.07.2009 the wife went to stay in the above house, but due to physical and mental harassment caused by the family members of the husband, her health condition worsened and she left the house on 23.07.2009. In these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge modified the residential order directing the husband to secure some alternative accommodation. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that section 19 (1) (f) of Act empowers the Magistrate to pass a residence order directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require. It is relevant to note that the main purpose of introducing the provision of ‘residential order’ is to provide some sort of shelter to the victim wife. In the present case, it is specifically observed by the learned Sessions Judge that in two connected cases it was the specific case of the wife that when she entered into the house of in-laws in pursuance of the residential order, she was subjected to harassment physically and mentally. In those circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge rightly ordered for alternative accommodation. In S.R.Batra v. Smt.Taruna Batra[1] also the Supreme Court held that claim for aleternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the in-laws or other relatives. In these circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no prejudice caused to the wife due to the modified residential order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or otherwise seeking interference of this Court. Therefore, the criminal petition is dismissed. In view of the disposal of main criminal petition itself, the miscellaneous petitions filed in the criminal petition shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 09.08.2010 sur [1] 2006 (8) Supreme 1002