Crl. Revision No. 3104 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 3104 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 13, 2010 Arushi Bhandari and others ........Petitioners Versus Rahul Bhandari and others ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3. SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 10.10.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala, whereby the cross-objections filed by the petitioners were dismissed. Petitioners had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Vide order dated 15.4.2009, the trial Court directed respondent No.1 to provide maintenance to the petitioners at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month for each minor child. It was also directed that respondent No.1 should provide some alternative accommodation to the petitioners or to pay Rs.1500/- per month to the petitioners as of rent to enable them to get separate accommodation on rent. It was further held that the petitioners were not in possession of the house in Crl. Revision No. 3104 of 2009 2 question and could not seek restraint from dispossessing them from the shared house hold. The said order was challenged by both the sides by filing revision as well as cross-revision. Both the revisions were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The house in question belongs to Dr. Baldev Raj Bhandari, father of husband of petitioner no.1. The case of the respondents was that the petitioner no.1 had voluntarily left the house on 20.11.2008 alongwith her children and had started residing with her parents. The husband of petitioner no.1 is residing in a rented accommodation. The trial Court held that the petitioners were not in possession of the house in question. In these circumstances, the Courts' below rightly held the petitioners who were not in possession could not get a restraint order qua their dispossession from the house owned by father of husband of petitioner No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court. In these circumstances, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) July 13, 2010 JUDGE Anand