AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi, J.—There is delay of 37 days in filing this criminal revision petition.
This revision petition is by the complainant before the learned Magistrate. Complainant had filed a complaint u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In the said application, she had also claimed for shared house. The trial Court by order dated 19.9.2009 had directed the respondents to provide shared house bearing Nos. 47, 1st floor, 1st Cross, Vivekanandanagar, Jai Bharathi Nagar, Bangalore. The said order was called in question by the 2nd respondent before the Fast Track Court-III in Criminal Appeal No. 25113/2009. The Appellate Court found that, the property against which the direction is issued, is exclusively belongs to the respondent No. 2 - mother-in-law and such property cannot be treated as shared house for the purpose of providing residential accommodation to the aggrieved party. Accordingly, it modified the order of the learned Magistrate and directed the husband to provide residential accommodation to the complainant and insofar as direction to provide house in property bearing No. 47, 1st floor, 1st cross, Vivekananda Nagar, Bangalore, is concerned, same is set aside.
Complainant has not disputed that the property against which the direction was issued, is exclusively belongs to mother-in-law. The Supreme Court in a decision reported in AIR 2007 SC 1118 in the matter of S.R. Batra and Anr. v. Taruna Batra has held that, the exclusive property of mother-in-law cannot be treated as shared house. Relying on the said decision, the Appellate Court has modified the order of the trial Court.
I do not find any error in the order of the Lower Appellate Court. Accordingly application LA No. 1/10 for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, this revision petition is also dismissed.