1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION (MAIN) NO. 228 OF 2008 Mrs. Telma Cotta .... Appellant V/s Public Prosecutor High Court & 2 Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. J. Alphonso, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 27 th FEBRUARY, 2009 ORAL ORDER : Challenge in this petition, filed by the mother-in-law of respondent no.3, who is the wife of respondent no.2, is against the order dated 19/07/2008 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge(2), Margao. 2. Respondent no.2-wife had approached the trial Court for certain reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and by way of an interim order allowed the respondent-wife to occupy one room in the shared household at Varca and further had directed the respondents (the petitioner and respondent no.2, herein) to allow her to use the gas and other household articles and were further directed not to prevent her from using the bathroom and the toilet in the house and were further restrained from committing any act of domestic 2 violence against the said complainant-wife. The learned trial court also directed the respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the wife by way of interim maintenance till the disposal of the main application. The monthly maintenance on April was directed to be paid within 8 days by the said order and thereafter it was directed to be paid on or before 5th of every month to which it related. The respondent-husband was also directed to pay an additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the said complainant within 8 days. Officer in charge of Colva police station was directed to provide protection to the complainant to implement the residence and protection order. 3. The husband as well as the mother-in-law (the petitioner and respondent no.2) filed an appeal against the said order of the trial Court, before the Court of Sessions, and, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 19/07/2008 found that the respondent-wife was working, a fact which was not disclosed by her, in her application and, as such, set aside the order of the learned JMFC to the extent it directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month till the disposal of the main application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the order as regards the residence and directed the petitioner to allow the complainant to occupy one room in the shared household at Varca and further directed that she should be allowed to use the gas and other household articles with further direction not to prevent her from using the bathroom and toilet in the house and forbade her to 3 commit any acts of domestic violence against her. The order to pay additional sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses was confirmed. 4. At the hearing of this petition, on behalf of the respondent-wife, a report along with the sketch of the house was submitted. The said sketch shows that there is an entrance room with the toilet, followed by 3 bed rooms and then kitchen on the right hand side and on the left hand side there is a porch followed by the living room an then dining room followed by the said kitchen. The petitioner also filed a sketch by her affidavit dated 16/02/2009 where the first room has been shown as a prayer room with attached bathroom. The other rooms more or loss remain the same. A outhouse has also been shown in the said sketch. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 has submitted that the said outhouse is most unsuitable for the residence of respondent-wife as it has asbestos sheets and as she is a sickly person. 5. Shri Arun Bras De Sa, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the house in question was not the conjugal home of the parties and, therefore, the respondent-wife cannot claim, as a matter of right, a residence in the same. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the respondent-wife was already dispossessed and therefore no interim relief as regards residence could be granted to the respondent-wife in terms of Section 4 19 of the said Act. Learned Counsel further submits that the house in question does not belong to the mother, the petitioner, alone but also to her three sons and, as such, a specific room cannot be given to the wife's residence. 6. Submissions made, have been contested, on behalf of the respondent- wife by submitting that even at present the respondent-wife is residing in the store room (as shown at page 43 of the paper book). 7. I am unable to accept any of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. It may be true that initially the petitioner's son got married in Mumbai and both started residing there, but, subsequently the petitioner's son came to Goa and started residing in the suit house and he was followed by the petitioner's daughter-in-law, respondent no.3, and as stated by her, since 13/12/1998, she has been residing in the suit house along with respondent no.2 and their son. There is no dispute that even at present, the respondent- wife resides in the suit house. Therefore, the contention that the respondent no.3 has been dispossessed cannot be accepted. If the house belongs to the petitioner and her three sons, needless to observe that after respondent no.3's marriage to respondent no.2, the house would also belong to respondent no.2. Section 19 has made a provision to restrain the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of a aggrieved 5 person from shared household. Here is the case where the respondent no.2 has as much right as respondent no.3 to stay in the suit house and respondent no.3 cannot be evicted therefrom. It is to be noted that the Act was enacted to make a home, a safe place for a woman. It is to be borne in mind that the inquiry into the main application is still pending and the order which has been passed is only an interim order pending adjudication of the proceedings. Considering the amenities available in the suit house and the strained relationship between the parties herein, in my view, it will be in the interest of all the three parties, residing in the house which is otherwise common and a shared household, as defined under the Act, that the respondent-wife is allowed to use the first room, which has an attached toilet, as shown at page 40 of the paper book, instead of the store room (as shown at page 43), which she presently occupies, as this arrangement will result in a better harmony between the parties. The order, impugned in this petition to the extent that it directs one room to be given for residence, perse, cannot be faulted. 8. Accordingly, the respondent-wife shall fix her residence in the said room of the said house (as shown at page 40) within a period of one week from today. Needless to observe that this is a temporary arrangement, pending a decision in the main application, which I am sure the learned Magistrate will decide, being uninfluenced in any manner by the arrangement presently made. The petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to 6 costs. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-