1 cri wp 1964 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1964 OF 2010 Deepika H. Ahluwalia and Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Gurpreet Ahluwalia and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. R.M. Adyanthaya i/by Mr. R.I. Shetty, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Edgar Braganza, Advocate for respondent. Mr. V.B. Kondedeshmukhk, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : NOVEMBER 24, 2010 P.C. 1) This writ petition is preferred against the interim order dated 3rd July, 2010 passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai refusing interim relief to the Petitioners in Appeal No. 44 of 2010 filed from the order dated 25th June, 2010 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivali, Mumbai on an application for interim relief under Section 24 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 2 cri wp 1964 of 2010 "The Said Act"). The Petitioners herein are the parents-in-law of the respondent. The husband has not challenged the orders passed by the courts below. 2) The respondent wife had claimed several reliefs including grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month, return of stridhan, right to reside in the shared household, restricting the petitioners from entering into the part household where the respondent resides and restraining the petitioners from alienating, disposing of the shared household. However, during the course of arguments on the interim application, the respondent did not press for the relief of interim maintenance as the husband is jobless and is not earning anything. By the order dated 25th June, 2010 the respondent's application was partly allowed restricting the reliefs to the residence of the respondent in the shared household. By the interim order passed, the petitioners and the husband of the respondent have been restrained from preventing the respondent from entering into the shared household during the pendency of the case with further direction to them to provide one of the bedrooms to her for her exclusive possession. The husband and the petitioners can have access to that bedroom only for the purpose of 3 cri wp 1964 of 2010 performance of either their matrimonial obligations or parental obligations. The petitioners and their son are also prevented from causing any kind of physical, mental harassment to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the interim order, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court, Mumbai which was admitted on 6th July, 2010 but relief for interim stay of the order was rejected stating "stay to the interim order not warranted". The appeal was then adjourned to 5th August, 2010 for hearing. Mr. Adyanthaya, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that appeal has now been adjourned to the month of January, 2011 for hearing. 3) The only contention raised in the appeal filed by the petitioners as well as in the present petition is that the house in respect of which the directions have been given by the courts below cannot be said to be a "shared household" within the meaning of The Said Act as it belongs not to the husband of the respondent but to the petitioenrs. It is the case of the respondent in the proceedings in the courts below that the petitioners and their son form a joint family and they have been residing in the flat as members of the joint family. Therefore, according to her the flat will be covered by 4 cri wp 1964 of 2010 the expression "shared household" used in The Said Act. Perusal of the reply to the interim application filed by the petitioners and the husband shows that it has not even been claimed therein that the family is not a joint family or that the husband has not been residing in the said house. During the course of the submissions before the Court, it is being contended that the husband is in fact residing at Bangalore in the house of a cousin of his father. The nature of arrangement of the residence, and expected duration of residence at Bangalore has not been disclosed. It is however claimed that the husband has gone there for the purpose of medical treatment with further claim that he is also looking for job at Bangalore. The record shows that the the marriage of respondent with the son of the petitioners took place on February, 2009. The husband lost his job in May, 2009. The respondent left the house in August, 2009. The husband went to Bangalore in September, 2009 for his medical treatment and returned to Mumbai in January, 2010. Then went back to Bangalore in April, 2010 and returned to Bombay in October, 2010 and since the time he has returned, he is in Bombay. Therefore, there is nothing to show that the husband is not residing in the house of his parents or that he has set up any separate household. 5 cri wp 1964 of 2010 4) Mr. Adhyanthaya, heavily relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in S.R. Batra and another Vs. Taruna Batra, reported in (2007) 3 S.C.C. page 169, which judgment was also relied upon by the petitioners before both the courts below in support of submission that the house belonging to the parents-in-law cannot be said to be a "shared household". The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in his exhaustive reasoned order has distinguished the decision cited on facts. In the decision relied upon the husband was not residing in the house of his parents. He had already established a separate residence by himself. The facts in the present case are othrwise. It is obvious on a prima facie view of the matter that the son of the petitioners has not left the house of his parents or established his household elsewhere. This court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, writ petition is dismissed. 5) At this stage, Mr. Adyanthaya, submits in case the petitioners as also the husband desire to and do make the reasonable provision for the residence of the respondent, they may be at liberty to file an application before the court for interim stay of the impugned order 6 cri wp 1964 of 2010 The Petitioners are always at liberty to file such an application in the event of making suitable residential arrangement for the respondent. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)