Crl.R.No.2493 of 2010(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R.No.2493 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 2.12.2010 Dr. Seema Aggarwal ….Petitioner Vs. Dr. Rajesh Gupta and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J By filing the instant Criminal Revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.7.2010 (P.1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court ), Ambala as well as order dated 15.6.2009 (P.3) passed by the learned JMIC, Ambala whereby ex parte interim order dated 28.5.2009 (P.4) was vacated and it was ordered that the petitioner has no right to reside in the house of respondent No.2-father in law of the petitioner. Dr. Rajesh Gupta-respondent No.1 is the husband whereas respondent No.2 is the father-in-law of the petitioner-Dr. Seema Aggarwal. It is stated that the petitioner was/is a Medical Officer and erstwhile posted at Civil Hospital, Ambala City and respondent No.1 is also a qualified Doctor and posted at Rohtak. The petitioner had moved an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Crl.R.No.2493 of 2010(O&M) #2# Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act of 2005”) that she was married with respondent No.1 at Khanna Palace, Ambala City on 3.12.2007 and her family members spent a huge amount on her marriage; that H.No.698, Sector 8, Ambala City is a 'shared household' as per Section 2(s) of the Act of 2005 and is alleged to have been purchased from the joint funds of the family and thus is a H.U.F property; and that she is not having any other accommodation besides claiming the right to residence in the above mentioned shared household. It is further stated that on the basis of said application of the petitioner, an ex parte party order dated 28.5.2009 (P.4) was passed by the learned JMIC, Ambala City and it was ordered that the petitioner was entitled to stay at her matrimonial home till further order. Aggrieved against the order dated 28.5.2009, respondent No.2-father in law of the petitioner filed an application for vacating of the interim ex parte order on the ground that the said house is exclusively owned by him and not by the husband of the petitioner. A copy of the sale deed of the house in dispute was also placed on record before the learned trial Court besides making a reference to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Batra and Another v. Taruna Batra (Smt), (2007) 3 SCC 169 wherein the Apex Court has clearly interpreted in very clear terms while holding that the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household and a shared household would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house, which belongs to the joint family of which husband is a member. On the basis of material available on record, interim ex parte order dated 28.5.2009 was vacated by the learned JMIC, Ambala City vide Crl.R.No.2493 of 2010(O&M) #3# its order dated 15.6.2009 (P.3). Aggrieved against the order dated 15.6.2009, an appeal was filed by the petitioner but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ambala vide its order dated 24.7.2010. Hence, the present Criminal Revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the courts below have wrongly come to the conclusion that the house in question was purchased by respondent No.2-father in law from his own earnings as there is no material available on record and that question is yet to be determined by leading the evidence. He further contends that even in the bio data of respondent No.1-husband of the petitioner, the address mentioned i.e “H.No.698, Sector 8, Ambala City” was duly signed by respondent No.2- father in law and it is the same house in which the petitioner after her marriage had started living as shared accommodation with the respondents. It is further contended that an FIR No.45 dated 17.4.2009 under Sections 323/506 IPC was also got registered by the petitioner at P.S GRP Ambala Cantt for suffering multiple injuries at the hands of the respondents. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner- wife has very fairly submitted that at present the petitioner is posted as Medical Officer at General Hospital, Jagadhari and thus being a government official is entitled for government accommodation at her place of posting as a matter of right or can claim the house rent if not residing in the government accommodation. But as a matter of fact, at present the petitioner is residing in a government accommodation and does not wish to press this petition at this stage. However, learned counsel prays that liberty may be granted to the petitioner to raise all the pleas before the learned trial Court while deciding her application under Section 12 of the Act 2005. Crl.R.No.2493 of 2010(O&M) #4# Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, the prayer of the petitioner is accepted and the present petition is disposed of as infructuous being not pressed with the liberty aforesaid to raise all her pleas available in law before the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage. December 02, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE