IN 

THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT: RAICHUR

Dated this the 5th day of August, 2019

// PRESENT //       

Shri Mustafa Hussain S.A.  B.A.,LL.M. 
II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Raichur.

Criminal Appeal No.4/2019

APPELLANT :­

S.   Omprakash   S/o   Subahshrao,   Age:   38   years,

Occ: KPCL Employee R/o T­III/01, RTPS Colony,
Shaktinagar, Tq. & Dist. Raichur. 
(Respondent   No.1   in   Crl.   Misc.13/2015   pending
on the file of Hon’ble C.J.M. Court at Raichur.
      
(By Shri B.V.P., Advocate)

­Vs­

RESPONDENT :­ 

Smt. Kaveri Nelwade W/o S Omprakash, Age: 32
Years,   R/o   T­IV/14,   RTPS   Colony,   Shaktingar­
584 170, Tq. and Dist. Raichur.
(Petitioner   in   Crl.   Misc.13/2015   pending   on   the
file of Hon’ble CJM Court at Raichur)

(By Shri K.B., Advocate)
 2 Crl. Appeal No.4/2019

J U D G M E N T 

The   appellant   has   preferred   this   criminal   appeal

U/Sec.29 of D.V. Act against the respondent being aggrieved

by   the   impugned   orders   dated   12.2.2019   passed   in   Crl.

Misc.13/2015 on the file of learned C.J.M., Raichur.

2. The   appellant   is   the   respondent   No.1   and   the

respondent   is   the   petitioner   No.1   before   learned   trial   court

and   they   are   referred   as   per   their   ranking   before   the   trial

Court.

3. The brief and relevant facts relating to this appeal

are as under :

The   petitioner   filed   the   petition   u/S.12   of   D.V.   Act

against the respondent No.1 and his family members seeking

maintenance and residence & other reliefs.  

During   the   pendency   of   the   petition,   the   respondent

No.1 filed application u/S.23 of the D.V. Act seeking direction

against   the   petitioner   No.1   to   vacate   the   quarters   bearing

No.Type­IV/14, RTPC Colony, Shaktinagar.  In support of the

application, the applicant has sworn to affidavit stating that

the   above   quarters   was   allotted   to   him   by   K.P.C.   for   his

 3 Crl. Appeal No.4/2019

residence and due to the dispute with the petitioner No.1 he

left the quarters and as such, the petitioners are residing in

the   said   quarters.     It   is   further   stated   that   now   he   is

promoted   as   Executive   Engineer   and   a   new   quarters   No.T­

III/1   is   allotted   to   him   due   to   his   promotion   and   he   has

occupied new quarters and now he has to vacate the earlier

quarters   in   possession   of   petitioner   No.1   and   have   to

handover to his department. Hence, the application.

4.  The petitioner No.1 resisted the application by filing

her objections  inter­alia contending that   the petitioners are

continuously   residing   the   quarters   and   contends   that   the

petitioner No.1 is a woman and the petitioner No.2 and 3 are

her   minor   children   and   if   she   is   directed   to   vacate   the

quarters without any alternative arrangement, she will be put

to   inconvenience   and   therefore,   sought   for   direction   to   the

respondent   No.1   to   make   alternative   arrangement   for   the

residence of the petitioners.  Therefore, on all these grounds,

she has sought for dismissal of the application.

5. The   learned   trial   court   after   hearing   both   sides

disposed the application with an observation that it has no

jurisdiction   to   direct   the   petitioners   to   vacate   the   premises

 4 Crl. Appeal No.4/2019

but   however   directed   the   respondent   No.1   to   provide

alternative accommodation having regard to the status of the

petitioners and their convenience.   Now the respondent No.1

being  aggrieved  by the  impugned  orders  has  come  up  with

this appeal challenging the correctness, legality and propriety

amongst the following grounds ;            

  The respondent No.1 now asserted that the impugned

order is erroneous and opposed to the law, facts of the case.

It is further asserted that the learned trial court has directed

him to provide alternative residence to the petitioners and he

has also agreed to provide alternative residence by searching

three   rental   houses   at   Shaktinagar.     It   is   further   asserted

that the learned trial court failed to direct the petitioners to

vacate  the  quarters  which  is  against  the  law.    It  is  further

asserted that he has occupied new quarters and due date for

vacating   and   delivering   his   earlier   quarters   has   already

lapsed and the K.P.C. authorities may initiate action against

him   and   that   he   is   ready   to   pay   rent   to   the   petitioners   in

respect   of   rented   premises.     It   is   further   asserted   that   the

impugned order has resulted in miscarriage of justice.  Hence

the revision petition.           
 5 Crl. Appeal No.4/2019

6.   The petitioner appeared through her counsel.   The

trial court records were secured.        

7. I have heard both sides and perused the material

placed on record.   The following points that would arise for

my consideration:­

1. Whether   the   trial   court   is   justified   in

refusing   to   direct   the   respondent   to
vacate   the   official   quarters   in   her
possession?
2. Whether   the   impugned   order   calls   for
any interference by this court?
3. What order?

     8. Having   regard   to   the   material   placed   on   record

and arguments heard, my answers to the above points are as

follows :

Point No.1: In the negative.

Point No.2: In the affirmative.

Point No.3: As per final order, for the following :  
 6 Crl. Appeal No.4/2019

// R E A S O N S //

9. POINT No.1 & 2  :­   It is the specific case of the

appellant   that   he   was   serving   as   Assistant   Executive

Engineer and the K.P.C. allotted to him the quarters for his

official accommodation.  According to the appellant due to the

domestic dispute with the respondent he left the quarters and

started residing separately and the respondent continued her

stay in the official quarters.  The appellant has asserted that

he   is   now   promoted   as   Executive   Engineer   and   a   bigger

quarters   is   allotted  to  him  for   his  official   residence   and  he

has already occupied the same and therefore, he sought for

direction   against   the   respondent   for   vacating   the   earlier

quarters.     The   respondent   also   in   her   objection   before   the

trial court contended that unless alternate accommodation is

made,   she   cannot   be   directed   to   vacate   the   quarters.     The

learned   trial   court   on   consideration   of   the   entire   material

placed on record has come to the conclusion that he has no

jurisdiction to direct the respondent to vacate the premises

and it is within the domain of the K.P.C.L. to take action.  It

is also observed by the learned trial court that the appellant

voluntarily   gave   the   quarters   to   the   respondent   for   her

 7 Crl. Appeal No.4/2019

residence and now the appellant cannot seek the indulgence

of the court.  It is also observed by the learned trial court that

the   respondent   has   sought   for   alternative   accommodation

and   a   direction   is   also   given   to   the   appellant   to   provide

alternative   accommodation   having   regard   to   the   status   of

respondent and her children.  

10. During   the   course   of   arguments   the   learned

counsel   for   the   appellant   argued   that   the   appellant   was

allotted to the quarters for his official accommodation and he

has no right or control over the said quarters.  It was further

argued that the K.P.C. has allotted another quarters to the

appellant in view of his promotion as Executive Engineer and

he is under obligation to vacate the quarters.  It was further

argued   that   the   K.P.C.   has   issued   notice   to   appellant   to

vacate   the   quarters   but   the   respondent   is   not   co­operating

with him and the appellant is likely to face disciplinary action

from his employer for noncompliance of the notice.   It was

further   argued   that   the   appellant   is   ready   to   provide

alternative accommodation through a rented premises of the

choice of the respondent and ready to bear all the expenses.
 8 Crl. Appeal No.4/2019

11. Repelling the said arguments the learned counsel

for   respondent   also   argued   at   equal   vehmence   stating   that

the respondent is in possession of the quarters along with her

children and that she cannot be comepelled to go for a rented

premises   which   may   cause   inconvenience   to   her   and   her

school   going   children.     It   was   further   argued   that   the

appellant   be   directed   to   accommodate   the   respondent   and

her children in the new quarters.   I have perused the entire

material placed on record.  

12. As   could   be   seen   from   the   material   placed   on

record, the appellant was allotted with official quarters by the

K.P.C. while he was serving as Assistant Executive Engineer.

According to the appellant, due to the marital dispute with

the  respondent,  he  left  the  quarters  and  staying  separately

and   the   respondent   along   with   her   children   is   admittedly

staying in the official quarters.  It is an undisputed fact that

the appellant is now promoted as Executive Engineer and in

view of his promotion, the K.P.C. has allotted to him a bigger

quarters   for   his   official   accommodation.       According   to   the

appellant, he has now occupied new quarters and that he has

to vacate the earlier quarters and a notice is also issued to
 9 Crl. Appeal No.4/2019

him by his employer.  But the learned trial court has come to

the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to pass such order

u/S.23 of D.V. Act.  

Section   23   (1)   of   D.V.   Act   confer   powers   on   the

Magistrate to pass such interim order as he deems just and

proper.       Admittedly,   the   application   filed   by   the   appellant

seeking   order   from   the   trial   court   for   a   direction   to   the

respondent to vacate the official quarters.   Section 19 of the

Act deals with residence orders which confer powers on the

Magistrate   to   pass   appropriate   orders   to   ensure   safe

accommodation to the respondent.   Section 19 (1) (f) of the

Act also confers power on the court to direct the respondent

to   secure   same   level   of   alternate   accommodation   for   the

aggrieved   person   or   to   pay   rent   for   the   same   in   the

circumstances of the case.   The relevant provisions reads as

under:

Section 19 Residence order.­­ (1) ***

(f) directing the respondent to secure same
level   of   alternative   accommodation   for   the
aggrieved   person   as   enjoyed   by   her   in   the
shared household or to pay rent for the same, if
the circumstances so requires:
 10 Crl. Appeal No.4/2019

This   provision   gives   power   to   the   court   to   direct   for

alternate accommodation or to pay rent for the same in the

circumstances of the case.   In the instant case, the official

quarter was allotted to the appellant by his employer mainly

because of his employment.   The right of the appellant over

the official quarters is like a Licensee and he can only use

and enjoy the premises so long as he remains in the post.

The appellant has no right or title over the official quarters

and he is bound to vacate whenever there is a demand from

his   employer   consequent   to   the   promotion   or   transfer.

Admittedly, the appellant is promoted as Executive Engineer

and he is already allotted quarters befitting his rank by his

employer.     The   appellant   asserts   that   he   has   occupied   the

new quarters.   That being so, it becomes incumbent on his

part   to   vacate   the   earlier   quarters   which   is   admittedly   in

occupation of the respondent.     The learned counsel for the

appellant   has   also   produced   the   notice   dated   23.5.2019

issued to appellant for vacating the earlier quarters and he

was   warned   of   action   in   case   of   non­compliance.     The

appellant being the Government servant cannot continue to

enjoy two official quarters at a time.  He has to retain one and

the other has to be vacated.  Therefore, in the circumstances
 11 Crl. Appeal No.4/2019

he   approached   the   learned   trial   court   seeking   direction

against   his   wife   to   vacate   the   quarters.     No­doubt,   the

allotment   and   direction   to   vacate   quarters   vests   with   the

employer of the appellant but that itself is not a ground to

consider the application filed by him in the peculiar facts &

circumstances of the case.  If the respondent had vacated the

quarters,   there   would   not   have   been   any   scope   for   the

appellant to approach the learned trial court.  Admittedly, the

dispute quarters was not allotted in the name of respondent

and therefore,  the  employer  of  the  appellant  has  to  initiate

action only against him and not against the respondent.   If

any eviction proceedings are taken place, the respondent will

be driven out of the house which may cause more hardship

and inconvenience to her than the inconvenience pleaded by

her   in   her   objections.       The   disputed   quarters   may   be

required   by   the   employer   of   the   appellant   for   allotment   to

some   other   official   and     her   continuous   occupation   of   the

quarters   may   give   scope   of   eviction   proceeding   from   the

employer of the appellant.   The appellant has also no other

option except in approaching the learned trial court seeking

appropriate direction against the respondent.   Since Section

19   (1)   (f)   of   the   Act   confer   powers   on   the   court   to   pass

 12 Crl. Appeal No.4/2019

appropriate   orders,   the   learned   trial   court   in   the   ends   of

justice, ought  to have allowed the application in the facts &

circumstances   of   the   case   and   should   have   directed   the

respondent   to   vacate   the   quarters   on   being   provided   with

suitable rented accommodation.   Therefore, the approach of

the learned trial court in holding that it has no jurisdiction is

improper and incorrect.  

13. Moreover, the appellant has fairly volunteered to

provide   alternate   accommodation   to   the   respondent   by

getting rented premises to her.  Interestingly, the respondent

also sought for the same relied in her objections before the

learned trial court and now for the first time before this court

she   is   seeking   direction   to   induct   her   in   the   new   quarters

allotted to the appellant.   No such relief was claimed by her

before   the   learned   trial   court   and   in   fact,   the   learned   trial

court   has   also   directed   the   appellant   to   provide   alternate

accommodation to the respondent befitting her status.   But

the   respondent   instead   of   opting   for   any   rented   premises

befitting her status and which is convenient to her has now

challenged this appeal by asserting her right of residence in

the new quarters allotted to the appellant.   Admittedly, the
 13 Crl. Appeal No.4/2019

parties have got marital dispute and the appellant is also an

Executive Engineer and the official quarters is allotted to him

for   his   official   accommodation   and   for   enabling   him   to

discharge   his   official   duties.   Further,   the   appellant   may  be

allotted with different quarters or he may be asked to vacate

the quarters by his employer and in that event, again it will

lead to further litigations between the parties.    Therefore, in

the   facts   &   circumstances,   it   is   not   proper   to   direct   the

appellant to provide accommodation to the respondent in his

official quarters.   On the other hand, the respondent herself

has opted for alternate accommodation and the appellant has

also   volunteered   to   provide   alternate   accommodation   and

that   being   so,   the   respondent   can   choose   any   rented

premises of her choice befitting her status and having regard

to   other   conveniences   and   the   appellant   shall   bear   all   the

expenses   including   the   advance   amount   if   any   and   the

payment of monthly rent as agreed by him.   Therefore, the

learned   trial   court   is   justified   in   directing   the   appellant   to

provide   alternate   accommodation   to   the   respondent   but

however the learned trial court is not justified in dismissing

the   application   by   holding   that   it   has   no   jurisdiction.     As

such,   the  impugned   judgment  calls  for   interference  by  this

 14 Crl. Appeal No.4/2019

court.       Hence   I   record   my   finding   on   point   No.1   in   the

“negative” and point No.2 in the “affirmative”.

14. POINT No.3 :­  For the foregoing discussions and

reasons stated therein the appeal filed by appellant succeeds

and   deserves   to   be   allowed.     In   the   result,   I   pass   the

following:

O R D E R

The   appeal   filed   by   the   appellant   is   hereby

allowed.

Consequently,   the   impugned   order   dated

12.2.2019   in   Crl   Misc.13/2015   on   the   file   of
learned trial court is hereby  set­aside in part.

The   appellant   shall   provide   alternate

accommodation   to   the   respondent   by   getting   a
rented premises which is convenient to respondent
and   her   children   and   befitting   their   status   in
consultation with respondent as early as possible
and not later than two months from the date of this
order.  The appellant shall bear all the expenses of
getting rented premises and shall continue to pay
the rent of the rented premises.   The parties shall
report the compliance of this order to the learned
trial court.  
 15 Crl. Appeal No.4/2019

The   respondent   is   directed   to   vacate   the

quarters   No.T­IV/14,   RTPS   colony,   Shaktinagar,
Tq.   Raichur   after   occupying   the   rented   premises
without any further delay.

Send   a   copy   of   this   Judgment   along   with

L.C.Rs to the trial court. 

(Dictated to the Judgment writer on computer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on the 5 th day of August,
2019) 

(Mustafa Hussain S.A.)
II Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
Raichur. 

*U*