( 2025:JHHC:32136 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.1942 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1942 of 2024 Kunal Singh, aged about 34 years, son of Heera Prasad Singh, resident of House No. D-704, Casa Wood Stock, Gaur City -2, Noida Extension, Greater Noida West, P.O. & P.S. –Bisrakh, District –Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nehpriya, aged about 32 years, wife of Kunal Singh, daughter of Shri Bipin Kumar Singh, residing at Vasundhara Estate, M-204, Dimna, P.O. Mango, P.S. Ulidih, Town Jamshedpur, District –East Singhbhum. …. Opp. Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 1. Heera Prasad Singh, aged about 65 years, son of late Thakur Prasad Singh. 2. Kiran Singh, aged about 61 years, wife of Heera Prasad Singh. Both resident of Flat No. 704, Tower D, Casa Wood Stock, Gaur City -2, Sector -16C, Noida Extension, Greater Noida West, P.O. & P.S. – Bisrakh, District –Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nehpriya, wife of Kunal Singh, daughter of Shri Bipin Kumar Singh, aged about 32 years, residing at Vasundhara Estate, M-204, Dimna, Mango, P.O. Mango, P.S. Ulidih, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate : Mr. Jagdeesh, Advocate : Mr. Kundan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate : Ms. Smita Sinha, Advocate ( 2025:JHHC:32136 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.1942 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. Both these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been preferred against two separate appeals filed by the respective petitioners as appellants against the same order dated 30.03.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 4951 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Jamshedpur, as an interim measure in exercise of the power under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has allowed the opposite party no.2 of both the criminal miscellaneous petitions to reside in the shared household with the petitioners of both these criminal miscellaneous petitions, who were the opposite parties of the said Complaint Case No. 4951 of 2023 and besides that granted interim compensation of Rs.12,000/- per month to the complainant of the said Complaint Case No. 4951 of 2023 who is the opposite party no.2 of both these criminal miscellaneous petitions. While the Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2024 filed by the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 1942 of 2024 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide the judgment dated 24th May, 2024, Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2024 filed by the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 was allowed in part vide judgment dated 05.09.2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur, by which the learned Additional Sessions ( 2025:JHHC:32136 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.1942 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 Judge –V, Jamshedpur set aside the portion of the order impugned before it dated 30.03.2024 in respect of payment of interim monetary relief against the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 while maintaining the same in respect of the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 1942 of 2024 and also maintained the interim residential order passed by the learned Magistrate to the complainant of Complaint Case No. 4951 of 2023 to reside in the house mentioned in the order. Hence, both these criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the opposite party no.2 of both these criminal miscellaneous petitions filed Complaint Case No. 4951 of 2023 under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 inter-alia with the prayer to: (a) to provide residential accommodation to the complainant; (b) to pay compensation of Rs.2 crores for the mental trauma; (c) for leading conjugal life with her husband who is the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 1942 of 2024; (d) Rs.1.5 lakhs towards litigation expenses and Rs.5,000/- per date fixed for hearing of the case; (e) to restrain the respondents of the said case from misusing the hacked messages, tampered video recordings, mails on social media. ( 2025:JHHC:32136 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.1942 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 4. During the pendency of the said Complaint Case No. 4951 of 2023, the opposite party no.2 of both these criminal miscellaneous petitions filed another petition on 01.02.2024 for following interim reliefs:- (a) grant of shared household (b) grant of litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (c) for providing safety and security to the complainant while she resides in the shared house hold. (d) for granting huge compensation for harassment caused to her. 5. An objection was called for by the learned Magistrate in respect of the said petition for interim relief. The learned Magistrate considering the materials in the record and the petition filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 which is supported by affidavit, granted interim relief to the complainant-opposite party no.2 (wife) allowing her to reside in the shared household at Noida in Flat No. 704, Tower D, Casa Wood Stock, Gaur City -2, Greater Noida West, Uttar Pradesh and an interim compensation of Rs.12,000/- per month. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 1942 of 2024 filed Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2024. The learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur vide the impugned judgment dated 24.05.2024 considered that there is ample material in the record to show that domestic relationship exists between the parties and there is also existence of domestic violence which is apparent from Domestic Incident Report ( 2025:JHHC:32136 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.1942 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 submitted by the District Probation/Protection Officer, Gautam Buddh Nagar vide Official letter no. 41 dated 08.04.2024 and the learned Magistrate was empowered under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in passing such interim residence order and dismissed the said Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2024. 6. The petitioners of Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 subsequently filed Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2024, which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge –V, Jamshedpur by the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2024. The learned Additional Sessions Judge –V, Jamshedpur considered the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2024 and also took note of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge observed that there is existence of both domestic relationship as well as domestic violence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV also considered the power of the Magistrate under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also took note of the law that the married women has right to reside in her in-laws house and also considered the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 414 which overruled the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra, reported in (2007) 3 SCC 169 and also considered that the learned Magistrate has allowed the complainant-opposite ( 2025:JHHC:32136 ) 6 Cr.M.P. No.1942 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 party no.2 who is the aggrieved person to reside in the shared household at Noida in Flat No. 704, Tower D, Casa Wood Stock, Gaur City -2, Greater Noida West, Uttar Pradesh or any other address at Gautam Buddh Nagar to reside with her husband and in-laws along with paying interim compensation of Rs.12,000/- per month and did not find any justification to interfere with the interim order and interim residence order but held that the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 are not liable to pay Rs.12,000/- per month. Hence, partially set aside the said order to the extent of interim monetary relief of Rs.12,000/- per month so for as the same is applicable to the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 but maintained the remaining portion of the order. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff Vs. Poonam Jaidev Shroff, reported in (2022) 1 SCC 683 wherein in the facts of the case, in para -27, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the facts of that case, that in case of a residence order was finally passed under Section 19 while disposing of an application under Sub- Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the facts of that case, that it would sub-serve the interest of the parties and would be detrimental to their interest, if the wife was allowed to move into the house and ordered that if the wife decides or she locates any of the rented premises as per her choice, the appellant-husband shall pay the rent of the said ( 2025:JHHC:32136 ) 7 Cr.M.P. No.1942 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 premises from the date on which such premises are taken on rent and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner here is also ready and willing to pay the rent of any premises as per the choice of the complainant opposite party no.2, if such premises are taken on rent. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order be modified by directing the complainant- opposite party no.2 to take a house on rent of her choice and the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 1942 of 2024 who is the husband of the opposite party no.2 be directed to pay the rent thereof. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners next draws the attention of this Court to para -90 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 414 and submits that in that case, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law and while granting relief both in application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 or any civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 30.03.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was an interim order and the Complaint Case No. 4951 of 2023 is still pending before the learned Magistrate for final disposal. ( 2025:JHHC:32136 ) 8 Cr.M.P. No.1942 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 9. Relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal, reported in 2025 INSC 734, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable against residence orders passed by the court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, Public Prosecutor and the learned senior counsel for the opposite no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.2 relying upon para -91.1 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja (supra) which reads as under:- “91.1 The definition of “shared household” given in Section 2(s) cannot be read to mean that shared household can only be that household which is household of the joint family of which husband is a member or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share.” That therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the shared household includes the household of the joint family of which the husband is a member and in this case, the undisputed fact remains that the husband of the complainant is the member of a joint family which owns the Flat No. 704, Tower D, Casa Wood Stock, Gaur City -2, Greater Noida West, Uttar Pradesh. It is next ( 2025:JHHC:32136 ) 9 Cr.M.P. No.1942 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 submitted that there is absolutely no material in the record to suggest that there would be any detrimental effect if the complainant is allowed to stay in her shared household in terms of the order dated 30.03.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 4951 of 2023 as an interim measure. 11. The learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.2 upon instruction from the complainant-opposite party no. 2 submits that the complainant-opposite party no.2 despite all the acts of omission and commission committed by her husband and her in- laws, undertakes not to file any further case against them, criminal or otherwise, if the petitioners of these two criminal miscellaneous petitions allow the complainant-opposite party no.2 to reside in the shared house hold in terms of the said order dated 30.03.2024, passed in Complaint Case No. 4951 of 2023 till she lives there. So, this rules out any apprehension of the petitioners and this also eradicates any justifiable reason for petitioners of these criminal miscellaneous petitions for not allowing the complainant opposite party no.2 to reside in her shared household. 12. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.2 relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 90, para -42 & 43 of which reads as under:- ( 2025:JHHC:32136 ) 10 Cr.M.P. No.1942 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 “42.Further, the expression “the right to reside in a shared household” cannot be restricted to actual residence. In other words, even in the absence of actual residence in the shared household, a woman in a domestic relationship can enforce her right to reside therein. The aforesaid interpretation can be explained by way of an illustration. If a woman gets married then she acquires the right to reside in the household of her husband which then becomes a shared household within the meaning of the DV Act. In India, it is a societal norm for a woman, on her marriage to reside with her husband, unless due to professional, occupational or job commitments, or for other genuine reasons, the husband and wife decide to reside at different locations. Even in a case where the woman in a domestic relationship is residing elsewhere on account of a reasonable cause, she has the right to reside in a shared household. Also a woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship has the right to reside not only in the house of her husband, if it is located in another place which is also a shared household but also in the shared household which may be in a different location in which the family of her husband resides. 43. If a woman in a domestic relationship seeks to enforce her right to reside in a shared household, irrespective of whether she has resided therein at all or not, then the said right can be enforced under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the DV Act. If her right to reside in a shared household is resisted or restrained by the respondent(s) then she becomes an aggrieved person and she cannot be evicted, if she has already been living in the shared household or excluded from the same or any part of it if she is not actually residing therein. In other words, the expression “right to reside in the shared household” is not restricted to only actual residence, as, irrespective of actual residence, a woman in a domestic relationship can enforce her right to reside in the shared household.” Law provides the right to a woman in a domestic relationship to enforce her right to reside in a shared household and here is a case where the petitioners of these criminal miscellaneous petitions just want to deprive the complainant-opposite party no.2 of such right conferred by law upon her; because of their adamant attitude. Hence, it is submitted that both these criminal miscellaneous petitions being without any merit be dismissed. ( 2025:JHHC:32136 ) 11 Cr.M.P. No.1942 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 13. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that domestic relationship exists between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2. From the allegations made in the different cases instituted by the parties, there is sufficient material to show that there is existence of domestic violence between the parties. Both the appellate courts in this respect have also relied upon the Domestic Incident Report submitted by the District Probation/Protection Officer, Gautam Buddha Nagar. The undisputed fact remains that the Flat No. 704, Tower D, Casa Wood Stock, Gaur City -2, Greater Noida West, Uttar Pradesh is a shared household in terms of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja (supra). The learned Magistrate has ordered that the aggrieved person can reside in the shared household Flat No. 704, Tower D, Casa Wood Stock, Gaur City -2, Greater Noida West, Uttar Pradesh or any other address at Gautam Buddha Nagar with her husband and in-laws. 14. As rightly submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.2, this Court do not find any material to suggest that like in the case of Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff Vs. Poonam Jaidev Shroff (supra), allowing the complainant-opposite party no.2 to reside in the shared household will sub-serve the interest of the parties and would be detrimental to their interest. ( 2025:JHHC:32136 ) 12 Cr.M.P. No.1942 of 2024 With Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025 15. In view of the categorical submission made by the learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.2 on instruction from the opposite party no.2 that the opposite party no.2 is ready and willing to undertake that she will not institute any case if she is allowed to live in her shared household against the petitioners, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2024 dated 24.05.2024 or the order dated 05.09.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2024 in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in Cr.M.P. No. 1942 of 2024 and 528 of the B.N.S.S. in Cr.M.P. No. 922 of 2025. 16. Accordingly, both these criminal miscellaneous petitions being without any merit are dismissed. 17. Interlocutory Applications, in both these criminal miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, are disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 7th October, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 30/10/2025