Wednesday 16 January 2013

Divorced wife is entitled to reside in shared household as per Domestic violence Act


Razzak Khan and Ors. vs. Shahnaz Khan

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Citations : 2008(4)MPHT413

Judge : S.C. Sinho, J.

Subject : Family;Criminal

Decided On : 2008-03-25



Disposition : Petition dismissed

Casenote:

Criminal - Share - Alternative Accommodation - Section 9(b),

37(2)(c) and Section 19(1)(f) of Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - R She is in a better financial

position whereas Ramzan Khan is a photo copy mechanic and

living with brothers and hardly able to maintain himself. Shahnaz

Khan is working as a clerk, therefore, her financial position is

much better than her husband who is casually working as a

photo copy mechanic and suffering from heart problem. 15. If

circumstances required so, divorcee wife Shahnaz Khan in view

of Section 19(1)(f) of the 'Act 2005' in the alternative husband

Ramzan Khan is directed to secure same level of alternate

accommodation for Shahnaz Khan as enjoyed by her in the

shared house with the help of Protection Officer or he will pay

Rs.


Judgment:

ORDER

S.C. Sinho, J.

1. These two revisions against the order passed in Criminal

Appeal No. 501/07 (Razzak Khan and 2 Ors. v. Smt. Shahnaz

Khan) and Criminal Appeal No. 595/07 (Smt. Shahnaz Khan

v. Razzak Khan and 2 Ors.) dated 19-12-2007, passed by 6th

Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur arising out of the order

passed in Complaint Case No. 23/2007 order dated 29-9-2007

by learned JMFC Jabalpur in proceeding under Section 9(b),

37(2)(c) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 (in short 'Act 2005') whereby these revisions have been

filed before this Court.

2. This is undisputed that Ramzan Khan and Smt. Shahnaz

Khan had taken divorce on 3-5-2007 in presence of witnesses.

Razzak Khan, Rehman Khan and Ramzan Khan are real brothers

and Smt. Shahnaz Khan is the daughter of real sister of the

applicants whose first marriage has been performed with

Musarraf Khan and out of first wedlock Master Shoaib was born

who is presently 16 years of age. After lapse of 12 years of the

death of her first husband, Shahnaz Khan has performed Nikah

with Ramzan Khan on 19-3-2003 and both of them were living

in a rented house. Ramzan Khan after the death of his father

Rasool Khan, on 7-2-2006 started living in ancestral house with

his two brothers along with his wife Shahnaz Khan.

3. The Shahnaz Khan filed a complaint under Section 9(b), 37(2)

(C) of the 'Act 2005' for claiming relief under Section 18 to 20

before JMFC Jabalpur. The JMFC vide order dated 29-9-2007

granted following reliefs to Smt. Shahnaz Khan.

1. Smt. Shahnaz Khan is entitled for sum of Rs. 16,439/- as

expense of delivery and medicines from Ramzan Khan.

2. Ramzan Khan shall not restrain Smt. Shahnaz Khan for going

to service (work place) nor he will snatched her salary.

3. Ramzan Khan shall give Rs. 2000/- per month towards the

maintenance to Smt. Shahnaz Khan and son Gazi Khan.

4. Ramzan Khan shall not assault and abuse the applicant (Smt.

Shahnaz Khan)

5. Shri Ramzan Khan shall pay necessary medical expenses in

relation to newly born baby.

6. Protection Officer was directed to ensure the delivery of the

Stridhan as per annexed to the complaint in his presence.

4. In Criminal Appeal No. 595/07, learned 6th Additional

Sessions Judge modified relief to Smt. Shahnaz Khan and

directed Protection Officer for providing accommodation in the

ancestral house of husband under Section 19(1)(f) of the 'Act

2005' and further granted Rs. 500/- per month maintenance in

favour of the foster son Shoaib Khan.

5. Learned Advocate of Shri Razzak Khan, Rahman Khan and

Ramzan Khan argued in detailed that Smt. Shahnaz Khan is

working as a Clerk in MPSRTC and comfortably living in her

parental house with her sons. She is in a better financial position

whereas Ramzan Khan is a photo copy mechanic and living

with brothers and hardly able to maintain himself. However,

Shri Usmani has conceded that even now he is prepared to pay

500/- per month to Smt. Shahnaz Khan and children. Learned

Advocate has further argued that it will not be proper in view of

the fact that Shahnaz Khan after divorce will live in the shared

house with Ramzan Khan and she is living very comfortably in

her ancestral house with her parents and brothers.

However,

6.

Shahnaz Khan has demanded enhancement of the quantum

of maintenance regarding Gazi Khan from Rs. 1000/- to Rs.

2000/- and regarding foster son Shoaib Khan from Rs. 500/-

to Rs. 1000/- per month from the date of application and also

demanded adequate compensation in terms of Section 20 and

22 of 'Act 2005'. Shri Imtiaz Hussain learned Counsel for Smt.

Shahnaz Khan has argued that looking to the price index meager

relief is granted to her and children. Therefore, this amount

should be enhanced.

in

Criminal

Revision

7. Both the learned Counsels were heard at length.

8. It is admitted position that Ramzan Khan has given divorce to

Smt. Shahnaz Khan on 3-5-2007. Smt. Shahnaz Khan is working

as a clerk in the MPSTRC at Jabalpur and living in her parental

house.

9. Learned Advocate of Razzak Khan and others Shri Ahdullaha

Usmani argued that because Smt. Shahnaz Khan is working as

a clerk, therefore, her financial position is much better than her

husband who is casually working as a photo copy mechanic and

suffering from heart problem. The learned Appellate Court after

considering the evidence produced by both the parties held that

Smt. Shahnaz Khan and her children are entitled for Rs. 2500/

- per month relief. Shri Usmani, learned Counsel argued that

applicant Smt. Shahnaz Khan did not refer name of her foster

son Shoaib Khan in original application before JMFC therefore,

learned Appellate Court without any cause granted Rs. 500/-

maintenance to Gazi Khan. It is admitted position that Gazi Khan

is foster son of Smt. Shahnaz Khan and Razzak Khan and strict

rule of pleadings are not applicable in proceedings under the 'Act

2005'. Shri Imtiaz Hussain, learned Advocate of Shahnaz Khan

has argued at length that looking to the present price index

quantum of monthly maintenance of Rs. 1000/- to Gazi Khan

and Rs. 500/- to Shoaib Khan should be enhanced and further

adequate compensation be granted to Smt. Shahnaz Khan.

10. It is admitted position that Smt. Shahnaz Khan is working

as a clerk in MPSRTC, Jabalpur whereas her husband Ramzan

Khan is a photocopy mechanic and not getting regular salary,

he is also suffering from heart ailment. In these circumstances,

both the Courts below after appreciation of evidence has given

findings of income, regarding financial status of the parties. This

Court is of the view that the monthly maintenance granted by

learned Appellate Court is justified.

11. Shri Ahdullaha Usmani learned Advocate for Razzak Khan

and others has vehemently argued that if divorcee wife Smt.

Shahnaz Khan will stay in the shared house with applicant

then it will create many problems. Further Smt. Shahnaz Khan

is living comfortably with her brother in her parental house

and therefore, the Revisional Court has committed a grave

mistake in ordering for providing accommodation to her in the

house of husband and brothers. He has further argued that

because Ramzan Khan has given divorce to Smt. Shahnaz Khan

therefore, jurisdiction under 'Act 2005' is not attracted.

12. It is clear that applicant and his two brother are staying in a

three-storied house at Jabalpur. In this regard it will be proper to

reproduce Section 17(1) of the Act of 2005.

17. (1) Right to reside in a shared household.

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the

time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall

have the right to reside in the shared house hold, whether or not

she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

This Section lays down that irrespective of any contrary proviso

in any other law, every woman in a domestic relationship

shall have the right to reside in the shared household and the

aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the

shared household by the respondent except in accordance with

the procedure established by law. Further Section 2 of 'Act

2005' defines 'aggrieved persons' and 'domestic relationship'

and 'shared household' as given below:

2. Definitions.-

(a) 'aggrieved person' means any woman who is, or has been,

in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges

to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the

respondent;

(f) 'domestic relationship' means a relationship between two

persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together

in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity,

marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage,

adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;

(s) 'shared household' means a household where the person

aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic

relationship either singly or along with the respondent and

includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either

jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned

or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the

aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have

any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household

which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent

is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the

aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared

household.

13. Thus, it is clear that every women in a domestic relationship

shall have the right to reside in the shared house except in

accordance with the procedure established by law therefore, this

argument of applicant has no force that divorcee wife Shahnaz

Khan has no right to reside in an ancestral house of husband or

such living will amount to 'Haram'.14. Further as held by Apex Court in S.R. Batra v. Smt. Tarun

Batra Civil Appeal No. 5837/06 (SC), decided on 15-12-2006, it

is made clear that the claim for alternative accommodation can

only be made against husband Ramzan Khan and she is entitled

a right to residence in a shared house would only mean house

belonging to husband Ramzan Khan or house which belongs to

joint family of which husband is a member.

15. If circumstances required so, divorcee wife Shahnaz Khan

in view of Section 19(1)(f) of the 'Act 2005' in the alternative

husband Ramzan Khan is directed to secure same level of

alternate accommodation for Shahnaz Khan as enjoyed by her

in the shared house with the help of Protection Officer or he will

pay Rs. 900/- per month rent to Smt. Shahnaz Khan from date

of Trial Court order i.e., 29-9-2007.

16. Suffice it to say that the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Jabalpur, has not committed any error of law and fact

in impugned Criminal Appeal No. 501/2007 and 595/2007,

dated 19-12-2007. This Court does not find any such illegality,

irregularity or perversity in the impugned order to interfere

in these revision petitions except modification as provided in

Section 19(1)(f) of the 'Act 2005'.

With this modification, both revisions are dismissed.
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment