Delhi District Court
[Seema vs . Raghubir Singh & Ors.] on 27 February, 2017
In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 49769/2016
[Seema Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors.]
Dated : 27th February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. KANWALJEET ARORA
ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE - 03 : NORTH WEST
ROHINI COURTS : NEW DELHI
Seema Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors.
Crl. Appeal No.: 49769/2016
U/S 29 of PWDV Act 2005
SEEMA
W/o.: Late Dharambir Singh
R/o.: 168B, Pooth Kalan,
Delhi110086.
[...... Appellant ]
v e r s u s
(1) RAGHUBIR SINGH
R/o E22, Laxmi Park, Nangloi,
Delhi110040.
(2) Smt. Savitri Devi
R/o E22, Laxmi Park, Nangloi,
Delhi110040.
(3) Smt. Vandana
R/o E22, Laxmi Park, Nangloi,
Delhi110040.
(4) Smt. Sarita
W/o Joginder Singh
R/o V.P.O. Mukhmelpur,
Delhi110040.
[.... Respondents]
Date of Institution of Appeal : 07.04.2016 Date of Allocation : 08.04.2016 Date of conclusion of arguments : 22.02.2017 Date of Order : 27.02.2017 Crl. Appeal No.: 49769 / 2016 Page 1 of 12 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 49769/2016 [Seema Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors.] Dated : 27th February, 2017 [Particulars related to impugned order] C.C. No. : 71/ 4/ 14 Under Section : 12 of DV Act.
Police Station : Sultan Puri
Date of Impugned Order : 22.08.2015
Name of Ld.Trial Court : Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar,
Ld.MM (Mahila Court)
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Memo of appearance:
Sh. J.P. Singh, Advocate, Ld.Counsel for Appellant. None for respondent.
O R D E R :
1. Feeling aggrieved with orders dated 22.08.2015 passed by Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar, Ld. MM (Mahila Court), North West, Rohini, whereby complaint / petition U/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, preferred by appellant who was petitioner therein, was dismissed being not maintainable against the respondents.
2. The said order was challenged by the appellant by filing the present appeal on 22.04.2016. Alongwith the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay was filed. Notice thereof was ordered to be issued to all the four respondents who are related to the complainant being father in law, mother in law, sister in law and sister in law respectively.
3. Trial court record was also ordered to be summoned.Crl. Appeal No.: 49769 / 2016 Page 2 of 12
In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 49769/2016 [Seema Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors.] Dated : 27th February, 2017 For three consecutive dates of hearing, steps were not taken by the appellant for service of respondents, as no process fee was filed. Thereafter process issued to respondents were received back with report of refusal.
4. Trial court record was summoned. As none appeared for respondents, I proceeded to hear the arguments on behalf of appellant, in view of the fact that respondents had refused to accept the process issued to them.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. J.P. Singh, Advocate, Ld.Counsel for the appellant. I have gone through the appeal and the grounds on which the same has been filed. I have also perused the complaint filed by the appellant against the respondents before Ld.Trial Court. I have also perused the impugned order dated 22.08.2015 & the trial court record.
6. Ms. Seema had filed an application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as PWDV Act) before Ld. Trial Court against her parents in law and sisters in law, wherein she had come up with following prayers :
(a) Pass protection orders under section 18 of the Act thereby prohibiting the respondents from entering the share of petitioner in the matrimonial house and prohibiting them from aliniating property bearing no.Crl. Appeal No.: 49769 / 2016 Page 3 of 12
In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 49769/2016 [Seema Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors.] Dated : 27th February, 2017 E22, Laxmi Park, Nangloi, Delhi.
(b) For restraining respondents under section 19 from dispossessing or encumbering the shared household i.e. E22, Laxmi Park, Nangloi.
(c) Pass orders under section 20 thereby directing respondents to pay monetary relief to the extent of Rs.
35000/ per month to the petitioner and two minor daughters.
7. As per the complaint, she was married to Dharambir Singh son of respondent nos. 1 & 2 on 24.06.1999. It is stated that she was blessed with two children namely baby Vanshika and Harshika in the year 2000 and 2002 respectively. It is alleged by the petitioner/ complainant that her marriage was performed by her parents fulfilling all demands of respondents, wherein expensive gifts were given to all the respondents. It is submitted that she was taunted, tortured and harassed by her inlaws for bringing insufficient dowry.
8. It is submitted that husband of the complainant had committed atrocities on the complainant and the present respondents had threatened brother and mother of the complainant on which she was taken to her parental house in August 2012. It is submitted that husband of complainant namely Dharambir Singh expired on 06.06.2013 about which complainant was informed ten days thereafter. It is submitted that after death of her husband, complainant tried to start residing in her matrimonial house on Crl. Appeal No.: 49769 / 2016 Page 4 of 12 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 49769/2016 [Seema Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors.] Dated : 27th February, 2017 13.03.2014 but she was not allowed by the respondents. It is submitted that in view thereof, she had filed the present complaint seeking the above mentioned reliefs.
9. Perusal of the trial court record reveals that Ld. Mahila Court had called for DIR from the protection officer. The said DIR was duly received by Ld. Trial court on 05.09.2014 and during the proceedings dated 05.09.2014, complainant who is appellant herein, herself admitted before Ld. Trial court that both her sisters in law i.e. respondent nos. 3 & 4 herein, are married and are residing in their respective matrimonial houses.
10. On the basis thereof, Ld. Trial court finding no domestic relations between the complainant who is appellant herein and sisters in law, on the basis of facts alleged in the complaint, had issued summons to respondent nos. 1 & 2 only i.e. parents in law of the complainant.
11. Trial court record further reveals that respondent no. 1 tendered appearance before Ld. Trial court on 06.01.2015. On said date itself, respondent no. 1 i.e. father in law of the complainant had produced copy of the newspaper dated 12.10.1996, whereby he had apprised Ld. Trial court of having disowned his son namely Dharambir Singh i.e. husband of the complainant in the year 1996 itself.
Crl. Appeal No.: 49769 / 2016 Page 5 of 12In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 49769/2016 [Seema Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors.] Dated : 27th February, 2017
12. In view thereof, Ld. Trial court posted the matter for arguments on the point of its maintainability. Vide the impugned order dated 22.08.2015, Ld. Trial court on the basis of material on record, opined that as there was no domestic relationship between the parties, thus the complaint / petition is not maintainable. The same was dismissed accordingly.
13. It is this order which has been challenged by the appellant/ petitioner invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this court. It is contended by Sh. J.P. Singh, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for appellant that trial court has failed to consider the averments made by the complainant in her complaint and without giving opportunity to the appellant to produce material regarding the domestic relationship which she was sharing with the respondents, had dismissed the petition. It is contended by Ld. counsel for appellant that no opportunity was given by Ld. Trial court to the complainant to lead evidence, to show that she was having a shared household with the respondents and thus was entitled to get the relief sought for.
14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by Ld. Counsel for appellant. I have also gone through the objects and the purposes which legislature had in mind for bringing PWDA on the statute book.
15. The enabling provisions of the Act are required to be Crl. Appeal No.: 49769 / 2016 Page 6 of 12 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 49769/2016 [Seema Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors.] Dated : 27th February, 2017 interpreted, in such a fashion so as to further the object and purpose for which the Act was brought on the statute book. The same is to give remedy to the aggrieved person from domestic violence. The domestic violence can take place only when one is living in shared household with the respondents. The acts of abuses, be it emotional or economic, physical or sexual, verbal or nonverbal comes under the definition of domestic violence, only when the same are committed on a person who is living with respondents, in the shared household. However, such acts of violence can be committed by the respondents, even otherwise also, when complainant is living separately. When such acts of violence takes place when complainant is living separately, these may be punishable under different provisions of IPC or other penal laws, but they cannot be covered under Domestic Violence Act and does not give rise to any cause of action for invoking the provisions of PWDA.
16. Thus for the purposes of invocation of the provisions of PWDA, the court has to make distinction between the alleged acts of violence committed on a person living separately in a separate household and the violence committed on a person living in the shared household. Only violence committed by a person while living in the shared household on the complainant, can constitute domestic violence, thereby giving rise to a cause of action in favour of the complainant, to invoke these provisions by filing petition/ complaint under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.
Crl. Appeal No.: 49769 / 2016 Page 7 of 12In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 49769/2016 [Seema Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors.] Dated : 27th February, 2017
17. In the backdrop of above and before taking into account the facts alleged by the complainant in her complaint before Ld. Trial court vis. a. vis. the impugned order dated 22.08.2015, I deem it appropriate to refer to the definition of "domestic relationship" as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act and that of "shared household" as defined in Section 2 (s) of the Act. The same reads as under:
Section 2(f) defines "Domestic Relationship" as a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.
Section 2(s) defines "Shared Household" as a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such as household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.
18. With these definitions on the statute book, I have perused the facts as emanating from the trial court record which Crl. Appeal No.: 49769 / 2016 Page 8 of 12 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 49769/2016 [Seema Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors.] Dated : 27th February, 2017 clearly reveals that complainant who is appellant herein got married to Dharambir Singh on 24.06.1999, whereas respondent no. 1 had already disowned him much prior thereto, through a declaration published in newspaper dated 12.10.1996. Merely because in the photograph submitted during the course of arguments by Ld. Counsel for appellant, respondent nos. 1 & 2 herein are seen, the same by no stretch of imagination can be taken to be of any consequence, regarding their having a shared household with the complainant.
19. It is further apparent from the material on record as stated by complainant herself in her complaint that she had been residing with her parents since 2004, whereafter she was not allowed to enter the house by her husband. Record further reveals that she had initiated proceedings against her husband in the year 2006 and that her husband expired on 06.06.2013, whereafter she tried to start residing in the matrimonial house from 13.03.2014 but was not allowed to do so.
20. In view thereof from the facts averred by complainant herself in her complaint, it is apparent that she was not residing with respondent nos. 1 & 2, who are her parents in law, in any shared household since long. Further considering the fact that respondent no. 1 had already disowned husband of the complainant much prior to his marriage with the complainant, in itself reveals that no cause of action accrues in her favour for invocation of Crl. Appeal No.: 49769 / 2016 Page 9 of 12 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 49769/2016 [Seema Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors.] Dated : 27th February, 2017 provisions of this Act against her parents in law i.e. respondent nos. 1 & 2 herein.
21. Having regards to these facts and circumstances, it is apparent from the facts alleged in the complaint itself that even from prima facie point of view, there is no domestic relationship between the complainant and respondent nos. 1 & 2 who are her parents in law, as she was not having any shared household with them. So far as respondent no. 3 & 4 are concerned who are sisters inlaw of the complainant living in their respective matrimonial houses after marriage, were not even summoned and were dropped vide orders dated 05.09.2014 Ld. Trial court. The said order was never challenged by the complainant and thus attained finality, is not required to be considered in the present appeal.
22. Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the aspect of shared household in the case titled "S.R. Batra V/s Taruna Batra" reported as AIR 2007 SC 1118, had held that;
"house in question belongs to the motherinlaw of respondent and it does not belong to her husband, hence, she cannot claim any right to live in the said house - Appellant No. 2, the motherinlaw of respondent has stated that she had taken a loan for acquiring the house and it is not a joint family property and this statement cannot be disbelieved. Wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a shared household, would only mean the Crl. Appeal No.: 49769 / 2016 Page 10 of 12 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 49769/2016 [Seema Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors.] Dated : 27th February, 2017 house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. Property in question in the present case neither belongs to husband nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband is a member. Hence it cannot be called a shared household."
23. In another case titled "Sardar Malkiat Singh Vs. Kanwaljit Kaur & Ors." reported as 2010 (116) DRJ 295, Hon'ble court had held that;
"Wife has no right of residence in a house owned by parents'inlaw. Shared household can only mean a house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or a house which belongs to a joint family of which the husband is a member. Wife's possession in a house of her father inlaw can at the most be said to be permissive in nature and by no means entitles her to stay in the house for an indefinite period of time, more so when her husband has no share or interest in the same."
24. With these authoritative pronouncements by Hon'ble superior courts in mind and taking into consideration that husband of the appellant was already disowned by his parents much prior to his marriage with the present complainant, makes it clear that even husband of the complainant had no right to enter in the property owned by respondent no. 1 & 2, parents in law of the present appellant. Thus by no stretch of imagination, more particularly in view of facts averred in the complaint and as observed by me herein Crl. Appeal No.: 49769 / 2016 Page 11 of 12 In the matter of :-
Crl. Appeal No. : 49769/2016 [Seema Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors.] Dated : 27th February, 2017 above, the property owned by respondent nos. 1 & 2 can be said to be shared household. Further from the facts stated in the complaint itself, it is apparent that complainant was residing with her parents since 2004 and thus was not sharing any domestic relationship with respondent nos. 1 & 2. In case of any dispute between the parties in relation to any immovable property and on the basis of any cause of action therefrom, the appellant herein can initiate appropriate proceedings before concerned civil / criminal courts.
25. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.08.2015.
26. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
27. Trial Court record along with copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court.
28. The appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court of 27th day of February, 2017.
(KANWAL JEET ARORA) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE03, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Crl. Appeal No.: 49769 / 2016 Page 12 of 12