1 REVN 203.10.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO. 203 OF 2010 Mr. Nishikant Jagannath Jadhav and Anr. ... Applicants. V/s. Mrs. Vijaya Jagannath Jadhav and Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Sandesh Deshpande for the Applicants. Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Counsel i/b. Rajesh Datar for Respondent 1. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 18th AUGUST 2011. P.C. :- Heard. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The Applicants question the legality of the order dated 26th February 2010 recorded by the learned District Judge - II and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Appeal No.131 of 2007. 4. It is an unfortunate event that the Respondent Smt. Vijaya felt that her son Nishikant (Petitioner No.1) and daughter-in-law Mrs. Neha (Petitioner No.2) have made her life miserable while stay in the house. Basically from the documents it appears Smt. Vijaya – Respondent, was onwer of disputed property. The learned Sessions Judge, as could be seen, has rightly analyzed the evidence and the documents. The embellishment or little omission pointed by the learned 2 REVN 203.10.sxw Counsel for the Petitioners, will not go to the root of matter to tear the contentions raised by the Respondent - mother. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has indeed recorded the events of perversity to the findings of learned Magistrate, who has ignored the very aim and object of the special enactment under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2004. The learned Judge has also dealt with Section 3 of the said Act as to what amounts to domestic violence. He considered very principles underlined in the said Act and thereafter, he re-appreciate the evidence and reached to the conclusion of the illegalities committed by the Petitioner herein in harassing the Respondent. He found that she was exclusive registered owner, has every right to prohibit a trespasser to protect her privacy, including her legal rights in terms of Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2004. 5. The learned Magistrate should not have ignored the mantle of protection conferred by special statute to the Respondent. Taking survey of above events of the matter, I do not see any illegality in the order under challenge. 6. Any observations made by this Court or by the Additional Sessions Judge, shall not come in the way of the parties litigating at other places. 7. The Revision Application dismissed. Rule discharged. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) 3 REVN 203.10.sxw