Smt. Prabha Toppo v. The State of Jharkhand & Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr. Revision No.871 of 2012 Smt. Prabha Toppo Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others ..... Petitioner …. Opposite Parties CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA For the Petitioner For the State Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey A. P.P. : : ----- 4/31.1.2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the private opposite parties. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 12.9.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Cr. Appeal No. 25 of 2012, whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 22.2.2012 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Giridih, in C-1363 of 2011 / T.R. No.1816 of 2012, has been set-aside by the learned Appellate Court below. It may be stated that the learned S.D.J.M by order dated 22.2.2012 had allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’), and the opposite party Raju Bodra, who is the husband of the petitioner, was directed to keep the complainant Prabha Toppo in the house in question. It appears that the said order was challenged by Raju Bodra and his two cousin sisters, in whose favour the house in question was claimed to be sold by Raju Bodra, by filing the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih. Learned Sessions Judge by order dated 12.9.2012 passed in the said Cr. Appeal No. 25 of 2012, has allowed the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Giridih, finding that the petitioner wife was allotted a government quarter being the Accounts Clerk in the Office of the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Giridih, she was residing at police line, Barwadih, Giridih and this fact was not controverted by the complainant. The Appellate Court below also found that the house in question was sold to the cousin sisters, though some legal formalities had not been complied with, but no order could be passed against the women under the provision of Section 19 of the said Act. The Appellate Court below accordingly, allowed the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, in as much as, the petitioner was residing in the house in question, and the husband of the petitioner was directed under Section 19 of the Act to keep her in the house. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before passing the order, the learned S.D.J.M., had called for a report C.D.P.O., Giridih, and on consideration of the said report learned S.D.J.M., had passed the order under Section 19 of the said Act in favour of the petitioner directing the opposite party-husband to keep the petitioner in the house in question with full dignity and as such the order could not be interfered by -2- the Appellate Court below. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 4. The report, on the basis of which the order was passed in favour of the petitioner, has been brought on record as Annexures 2 and 3 to this application. The report clearly shows that on the date of inspection of the house in question by the C.D.P.O., the petitioner was not living in the house. It has come in the report that after her marriage, the petitioner lived in the house only for one month. In the concluding part of the report also, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner had already been dispossessed from the said house. 5. Section 19 of the Protection of Woman from the Domestic Violence Act lays down as follows:- “19. Residence orders. -- (1) While disposing of an application under sub-Section under Section (1) of Section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order-- (a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household; (b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household; (c) restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides; (d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared household or encumbering the same; (e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except within the leave of the Magistrate; or (f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require; Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman” 6. Thus, from the plain reading of the Act, it is apparent that there is no provision for restoration of the possession of the victim lady in the said Act, rather Section 19 of the Act only protects the woman living in the house from being dispossessed from the said house and it also makes provision for alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person in appropriate cases. It no where prescribes that if the woman who is not residing in the house, or who is residing in a different house, her possession shall also be restored by the Court in exercise of -3- the power under Section 19 of the said Act. From the report of the C.D.P.O., which has been brought on record by the petitioner herself, it is apparent that the petitioner had lived in the said house only for a period of one month after her marriage and presently she is already dispossessed from the house. It is also apparent from the impugned order that the petitioner is presently residing in a Government accommodation provided to her due to her employment. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that learned S.D.J.M., Giridih could not have passed the order directing the husband to keep the petitioner in the house in question, and as such, the order passed by learned S.D.J.M., Giridih has been rightly set-aside by learned Sessions Judge, Giridih. 7. It is made clear that this Court is not touching other questions whether the house has been sold by the husband in favour of the sisters or not, rather this Court has confined itself only to the provision of Section 19 of the Act in view of the fact that the report clearly shows that the petitioner was already dispossessed on the date of passing the order by learned S.D.J.M., Giridih, and the said order has been rightly set-aside by the Appellate Court below. 8. As such, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court below worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed. R.Kumar (H. C. Mishra, J)