Bombay High Court
Mrs. Namrata Shailesh Wairagade vs Shailesh S/O Shankar Wairagade ... on 4 September, 2017
Bench: P.N. Deshmukh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.390 OF 2016.
PETITIONER: Mrs.Namrata Shailesh Wairagade,
aged about 29 years, Occu: Household
r/o Panchsheel Nagar, Chandika Ward
Taluka Bhadrawati, Distt.Chandrapur.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENTS: 1. Shailesh s/o Shankar Wairagade,
aged about 32 years, Occu: Service,
r/o Panchsheel Nagar, Chandika Ward,
Tq.Bhadrawati, Distt.Chandrapur.
2. Shashikala w/o Shankar Wairagade,
aged about 55 years, r/o Panchasheel
Nagar, Chandika Ward Taluka Bhadrawati
Distt.Chandrapur.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.A.M.Sudame, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Vinay Dahat, Advocate for the respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: P.N.DESHMUKH, J.
DATED: 4th SEPTEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned counsel of both the parties.
2. Challenge in this petition is to impugned order dated 2nd April,
2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in
Criminal Appeal No.113 of 2014, thereby respondent - husband is
directed to provide a separate residence to petitioner - wife in any other
house consisting of one room having all requisite facilities within the
area of 5 kms. from the ancestral house of respondent situated at
Bhadravati. It appears that the learned appellate Court had modified
the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) in Misc.Criminal
Application No.43 of 2014 by which it was ordered that respondent
shall make arrangement for residence of petitioner in one room in their
ancestral house. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus, contended
that the order passed by the appellate Court, directing respondent to
provide alternate residence within the area of 5 kms. from the ancestral
house is uncalled for and without any basis.
3. It appears that marriage between petitioner and respondent
no.1 took place in the mBillingsonth of April, 2013 and thereafter
relations between them became strained due to which petitioner started
residing separately and filed complaint under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 wherein she
filed application under Section 23 of the said Act seeking interim
directions for her residence which are passed as aforesaid by the
learned trial Court and are modified under the impugned order by
learned appellate Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that
petitioner has right to live in the house of her husband, however, by
order impugned said right is affected.
5. Learned counsel for respondent has contended that in fact in
pursuance to order passed by the learned appellate Court respondent
has provided a separate residence consisting of one room within 5 kms.
area from ancestral home of respondent however in said room parties
resided even for a period of less than one month, and since then the
premises is lying vacant though respondent is making payment of rent
for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions,
submits that she is residing with her parents at Chandrapur. It is,
therefore, found that inspite of order passed by the learned trial Court
to provide residence to petitioner which, to some extent, is found to be
modified by the learned appellate Court by directing respondent to
provide the residence to petitioner in a room within the diameter of the
respondent's ancestral home, and accordingly respondent having found
to have complied with the order by providing a separate residence for
petitioner, she chose not to reside there and is residing with her
parents. In the circumstances, it is found that the petitioner is not
willing to reside in the accommodation provided by her husband.
Admittedly, complaint filed under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act is pending before the learned trial Court and is
stated to be fixed for evidence.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that
considering the attitude and nature of petitioner since she is of
quarrelsome nature and had lodged report with Police against the
respondent, the appellate Court has rightly considered the question as
to whether petitioner can be allowed to stay in the ancestral house of
respondent or directions can be issued to respondent to provide her
alternate residence to avoid further problems in the family and having
considered above said fact directed respondent to provide a separate
residence within 5 kms. from the ancestral home and in that
circumstance, impugned order came to be passed.
7. Without observing anything on merit of the case, petition
needs to be disposed of by expediting hearing in Misc.Criminal
Application No.43 of 2014 pending on the file of learned Judicial
Magistrate (F.C.) Court No.6, Chandrapur filed by petitioner under the
provisions of Domestic Violence Act to be decided within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of Writ of this Court.
Needless to say that pending decision of aforesaid
proceedings if the parties are willing to stay together, respondent shall
make necessary arrangement as it is stated at bar that since petitioner is
not residing in the arrangement made, room arranged by respondent
was required to be vacated as respondent was required to make
payment of rent, which he had made for a period of about six months.
Petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms with no
order as to costs. Parties to cooperate for early disposal of Criminal
Application.
JUDGE
chute
