Bombay High Court
Gautam S/O Sambhaji Narnaware vs Smt. Archana W/O Sunil Narnaware ... on 11 October, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 wp510of2016.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No. 510 of 2016
PETITIONER : Shri Gautam s/o Sambhaji Narnaware,
Aged about 70 Years, Occu: Private,
R/o Munje Baba Ashram Layout,
Plot No.123, Ambazari, Nagpur.
// VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS : 1. Smt. Archana w/o Sunil Narnaware,
Aged Major, Occu: Private,
R/o Munje Baba Ashram Layout,
Plot No.123, Ambazari, Nagpur.
2. Shri Sunil s/o Gautam Narnaware,
Aged about 42 years, Occu: Private,
R/o c/o Pramod Tejram Pardhi,
Joshiwadi, Gopal Nagar, 2nd Bus Stop,
Nagpur.
________________________________________________________________
Shri P.S. Sahare, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri S.R. Tiwari, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri S.M. Prasad, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
________________________________________________________________
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 11/10/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2 wp510of2016.odt
2] The learned 25th Judicial Magistrate First Class (Special
Court, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act), Nagpur
passed an order dated 17/12/2015, directing the M.S.E.D.C.L. to
provide new connection of electricity to the applicant, who is the
respondent No.1 in this petition, within a period of 15 days from the
date of order of payment of prescribed fees as per Rules. Being
aggrieved by the said order the appellant has challenged the same
in Criminal Appeal No.19/2016. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Nagpur on 13/05/2016 has dismissed the same. Hence, this
Petition.
3] Shri P.S. Sahare, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the respondent - complainant is the daughter-in-law of
the petitioner and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur
was not justified in maintaining the order of the learned JMFC to
provide the electricity connection to respondent No. 1 without
notice to the petitioner, who is the owner of the premises. The
order is therefore liable to be set aside. It is also urged by him that
without obtaining no objection from the owner of the house, the
Court could not have directed to provide electricity connection to
3 wp510of2016.odt
respondent No. 1.
4] I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties at length. It is not disputed that the order passed by the trial
Court directing to provide electricity connection by installing a
separate meter in the premises of respondent No.1, has been
complied with. There is no provision brought to the notice of this
Court requiring obtaining of "no objection" from the owner of the
house by the occupant. In view of this, the question of hearing the
petitioner before passing such order does not arise. It is for
respondent No.1 to pay electricity charges in respect of such meter,
which is installed. The M.S.E.D.C.L shall be at liberty to disconnect
the supply, if there is a failure to pay regularly the amount of bill, in
accordance with law. I do not find any fault with the view taken by
the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court, in issuing such
direction.
5] Shri P.S. Sahare, learned counsel for the petitioner
invited my attention to the fact that during the pendency of this
petition, the respondent No.1 who is the daughter in law of the
petitioner and being quarrelsome in nature, creates the scene on the
4 wp510of2016.odt
spot. The complaint was made of such incident and the police
authorities have registered the case of non-cognizable offence under
Sections 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code on 10/10/2017 and
the parties are left at liberty to adopt appropriate course of
action for redressal of grievance.
6] The petitioner is a Senior Citizen and the property where
respondent No.1 resides, is owned by him. Shri Sahare, invited my
attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
S.R. Batra and another v/s Taruna Batra (Smt) reported in (2007) 3
SCC 169 in which it is held that the house which exclusively belongs
to mother-in-law of the woman, wherein she only lived with her
husband for some time in the past after her marriage, cannot be a
"shared household" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short,
"the Domestic Violence Act") and hence the aggrieved woman shall
not be entitled to claim her right to live therein under Section 17(1)
of the Domestic Violence Act.
7] In the present case, the husband of the respondent No.1
is neither residing in the house occupied by the respondent No.1 nor
5 wp510of2016.odt
in the house occupied by the petitioner. In view of the aforestated
decision of the Apex Court, even if the respondent No.1 was residing
in the house in question for some time with her husband, it cannot
be her "shared household". The husband of the respondent No.1 is
prepared to make separate arrangement for the residence of the
respondent No.1, who seems to be adament and not prepared to
mend in any manner. She seems to be interested in troubling the old
aged persons.
8] In view of the aforesaid position, it is open for the
petitioner to institute the proceedings for eviction of respondent
No.1 from the premises and merely because the proceedings are
filed under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, the
respondent No.1 cannot claim protection or right of residence
under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner
being a Senior Citizen, it is expected from the police authorities to
see that there is no nuisance caused by respondent no.1 to the
petitioner and the petitioner leads peaceful life as a Senior Citizen.
The police authorities shall be at liberty to take such appropriate
action against respondent No.1 as is permissible in law, in the event
if such occasion arises.
6 wp510of2016.odt
9] In view of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is
dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
nandurkar
