Delhi District Court
Kuldeep Ashok vs Meenakshi on 12 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF V. K. BANSAL,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
NORTH-EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Crl. Appeal No.44/2022
CNR No.DLNE01-001561/2022
In the matter of:
Sh. Kuldeep Ashok
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
R/o S-205, Sangam Vihar Colony,
Jhansi, UP.
Also at
606, Supertech, Livingstone,
Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad,
UP. .........Appellant
Versus
Smt. Meenakshi
D/o Sh. Krishan Lal
R/o C-9/266, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110053. ...........Respondent
Date of registration of appeal: 21.05.2022
Date when appeal was received by this Court: 23.05.2022
Date of conclusion of arguments: 22.08.2023
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 12.09.2023
ORDER:
1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (herein after referred to as the Act) challenging the order dated VIRENDER KUMAR 18.04.2022, whereby the appellant herein has been directed to BANSAL provide vacant possession of Flat no.802, Tower B-6, Project Digitally signed by VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2023.09.12 Cherry County, GH5B, Tech Zone-IV, Greater Noida, G. B. 16:02:03 +0530 CA no.44/2022 Kuldeep Ashok Vs. Meenakshi Page 1/16 Nagar, within two months from the date of passing of the order to the petitioner i.e Meenakshi for her residence and in case respondent no.1 Kuldeep Ashok (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) fails to provide her alternative residence in the said property, petitioner may alternatively be entitled to receive rent of Rs.15,000/- as an alternative remedy from respondent no.1.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Meenakshi (hereinafter referred to as the complainant/respondent) filed petition under Section 12 of the Act against her husband Kuldeep Ashok (hereinafter referred to as the respondent/appellant) and Sh. Dinesh Singh. It is alleged that marriage between the complainant/respondent and respondent/appellant was solemnized on 17.02.2016 at Yamuna Vihar, Delhi as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. At that time, respondent/appellant was residing in Norway. In the end of August, 2015, respondent/appellant returned to India as he was transferred to Noida. A car was demanded at that time by the respondent/appellant and his father on the ground that the respondent/appellant had difficulty to drive to his workplace. In September, 2015, parents of the complainant/respondent gave Grand I-10 to the respondent/appellant. In November, 2015 respondent/appellant and his father started demanding big car and gold jewellery and threatened to break the marriage if demands are not fulfilled. In order to secure happiness of the complainant/respondent, her father agreed to fulfill their demands and gave gold jewellery of Rs.3 lakhs, a diamond ring worth Rs.80,000/-, clothes, household utensils and a demand VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL draft of Rs.8 lacs dated 04.02.2016. After the marriage, she started residing at her matrimonial home at Jhansi but 10 days Digitally signed by VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL Date: thereafter, they shifted to B-409, Krishna Vesta Society near 2023.09.12 16:02:33 +0530 CA no.44/2022 Kuldeep Ashok Vs. Meenakshi Page 2/16 Jaipuria Mall, Indirapuram, UP. On 16.11.2016 their son Kiaan was born.
3. The complainant/respondent is working in a government aided school as teacher and is getting salary of Rs.53,000/- per month. She has no access to her bank account and ATM. The respondent/appellant has snatched her debit card, pin number and internet banking password. He was handling all her salary and also bank accounts. The respondent/appellant without intimating the complainant/respondent accessed her account and transferred Rs.70,000/- to his own account on 10.05.2016. When she came to know and objected to it, respondent/appellant abused her and also gave her beatings. Again on 12.09.2016, respondent/appellant transferred Rs.1 lac in his account by online transfer without her knowledge. When she inquired from him, she was again beaten. She also sustained injuries due to violence caused by the respondent/appellant and photographs have been placed on record. Just after three months of the marriage, respondent/appellant cribbed with the complainant and threatened to divorce her. He used to threaten her for divorce on petty issues and even when there was no issue or fight taking place between them. The respondent/appellant used to harass, torture the complainant/respondent for not bringing sufficient dowry. At the time of the birth of the child, parents of the complainant/respondent gave two gold chains of approximately Rs.60,000/-, sliver spoon, sliver bangles for child and when she refused to make any further demand from her father, the respondent/appellant gave her beatings. The respondent/appellant VIRENDER KUMAR snatched all her money and savings left with her. BANSAL
4. On the occasion of Diwali, respondent/appellant forced Digitally signed by VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2023.09.12 the complainant/respondent to ask her father to give him a Honda 16:02:13 +0530 CA no.44/2022 Kuldeep Ashok Vs. Meenakshi Page 3/16 City Car as Grand I-10 car has become old. When she denied, she was abused and insulted in front of guests. On 10.08.2017, the respondent/appellant fought with complainant/respondent and beaten her brutally. She went to Government hospital where she was medically examined and also gave a complaint on 13.08.2017. The abuse, insult and quarrel became daily routine and at times neighbours used to interfere to bring down the temper and settle the issues. There were continuous demands of money and when those demands were not fulfilled, respondent/appellant used to harass, torture, abuse and quarrel with the complainant/respondent.
5. In September, 2017, the respondent/appellant got installed CCTV camera even in the bed room and Dinesh Singh/brother- in-law (jija) informed the complainant/respondent that he has access to camera installed in her bedroom and having her nude picture. She was threatened that if she made complaint, her nude pictures will be made online. In September, 2017, the respondent/appellant installed a tracking software in her mobile phone and started tracking her each and every movement and details of complainant/respondent while sitting in his office.
6. In December, 2017, when the respondent/appellant along with complainant/respondent visited her parents house at that time respondent/ appellant misbehaved with her parents and also demanded one Honda City car. When the complainant/respondent interrupted, she was beaten blue and black in front of her parents and left the house without eating dinner.
7. On 14.01.2018, the respondent/appellant called the father VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL of the complainant/respondent and told him that he wants Digitally signed by VIRENDER divorce. On 17.01.2018 while complainant/respondent was on KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2023.09.12 16:02:46 +0530 her duty, respondent/appellant took all his clothes, gold jewellery, CA no.44/2022 Kuldeep Ashok Vs. Meenakshi Page 4/16 Aadhar Card, voter ID card, driving license and RC of the car with him and left the house. However, he left behind Grand I-10 car but broke all the windows and rear view mirrors of the car. As the respondent/appellant vacated the tenanted accommodation, hence, the complainant/respondent went to Flat no.802, Tower B6, Project Cherry County, GH-5B, Techzone IV, Greater Noida, G. B. Nagar which was purchased in the joint name but she was not allowed to enter in the building and it was told that respondent/appellant has issued instructions that she be not allowed to enter in the house. She had no option but to go to her parental home as the landlord was constantly asking her to vacate the tenanted premises.
8. On 21.01.2018, when the complainant/respondent was at her parental home, the respondent/appellant along with his father removed all goods from the rented accommodation and threw her belongings and belongings of her son on the road. She came to know about this act from some neigbours. In the complaint, she has requested for protection under Section c18, residence order under Section 19 and monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act. The petition was also accompanied by an application under Section 23 of the Act for interim maintenance and ex-parte order.
9. Notice of the petition was sent to the respondents, who filed written statement and took preliminary objection that the complainant/respondent has not approached the Court with clean hands and is guilty of suppression and twisting the facts. She has levelled false allegations against the respondent/appellant to extract unlawful advantage. It is alleged that the present petition VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL is counter blast to divorce petition filed by the Digitally signed by VIRENDER respondent/appellant which is pending in Ghaziabad Court. The KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2023.09.12 16:02:55 +0530 submissions made by the complainant/respondent are totally CA no.44/2022 Kuldeep Ashok Vs. Meenakshi Page 5/16 false, frivolous and self contradictory. However, it is admitted that marriage between the respondent/appellant and complainant/respondent was solemnized on 17.02.2016. The petition is gross misuse of process of law. It is alleged that the complainant/respondent is a highly ambitious lady, who used marriage to propel her ambitions and when her unending expenses were not met, she herself left the house of the respondent/appellant. Number of reconciliatory efforts were made by the respondent/appellant and his other family members but she did not join his company. No cause of action arise in favour of the complainant/respondent as whole story is concocted.
10. It is denied that he was in Norway when the marriage was fixed. It is alleged that he returned from Norway in August, 2015 and the marriage was fixed in December, 2015. It is denied that respondent/appellant and his father demanded car from the complainant/respondent and her family on the ground that he was facing difficulty in travelling to his workplace. It is also denied that parents of the complainant/respondent gave Grand I-10 car to the respondent/appellant. It is alleged that all the allegations are false. She herself purchased the car in September, 2015 much before the solemnization of the marriage. The car no.DL-8CAM- 3874 was got financed in her own name and registered at her parental address for her personal use for going to school. No question arise for asking and giving Rs.5 lacs to the respondent/appellant. It is alleged that after the marriage, respondent/appellant had paid the full and final payment of VIRENDER KUMAR Rs.3,06,900/- from his own funds on 04.04.2016 with respect to BANSAL Digitally signed above car vide cheque no.113303. It is alleged that the by VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2023.09.12 16:03:02 +0530 complainant/respondent never permitted him to use that car, CA no.44/2022 Kuldeep Ashok Vs. Meenakshi Page 6/16 therefore, he was using the cab facility provided by his office. He got financed a car for himself and never demanded any other car.
11. It is denied that in November, 2015, he or his family members demanded car or jewellery or that when demand was not fulfilled, she was beaten and threatened that he would break the marriage. It is also denied that her family members gave them gold jewellery worth Rs.3 lakhs or diamond ring or any other article. It is alleged that as respondent/appellant as well as complainant/respondent were very well settled in their professions and were working, hence, there was no demand of dowry at the time of marriage or even thereafter. However, it is admitted that demand draft of Rs.8 lakhs was given for purchasing articles. It is alleged that only Rs.8 lakhs were spent in the marriage. The complainant/respondent is admittedly earning Rs.53,000/- per month at the time of marriage but despite that after the marriage, she did not spend even single penny on her own expenses. She compelled the respondent/appellant to pay her LIC premium, EMI of her car following which he had paid LIC premium, full and final payment of car, electricity bill, water bill, house rent, mobile bill, cable and internet bill in addition to other household expenses. It is admitted that they were blessed with son Kiaan born on 16.11.2016.
12. It is denied that after 10 days of their marriage, they shifted to B-409, Krishna Vista Society near Jaipuria Mall, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, UP. However, it is submitted that as they both were working, hence, it was decided before marriage that they would reside near their place of work. It is denied that she is earning VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL only Rs.53,000/- per month. It is alleged that she is getting Digitally signed by VIRENDER KUMAR Rs.70,000/- per month but she is hiding her actual earning and BANSAL Date: 2023.09.12 16:03:08 +0530 has not filed her salary slip. It is denied that she was not having CA no.44/2022 Kuldeep Ashok Vs. Meenakshi Page 7/16 access to her bank account or ATM card or her debit card, PIN number and internet banking password or that same have been taken by him. It is denied that he transferred to Rs.70,000/- to his own account on 10.05.2016. It is also denied that he transferred to Rs.1 lakh in his own account without her knowledge or that when she objected, he gave her beatings. He alleged that the photographs showing injuries are self created as no such incident has taken place.
13. It is alleged that she never paid single penny for household expenses despite earning Rs.70,000/- per month. He alleged that he has transferred amount of Rs.8 lakhs to the account of complainant/respondent, while they were living together. He was paying all her mobile bills, house rent, electricity bills etc and had also purchased fridge, TV, washing machine, AC, mixer and grinder for Rs.1,18,000/-. It is alleged that she is a quarrelsome lady, who always used to misbehave with him. All other averments are specifically denied.
14. The Ld. Trial Court after hearing arguments on application for interim relief passed the order dated 18.04.2022 (the date is mentioned as 19.04.2022). It is important to note here that besides issuing directions regarding providing her possession of Flat no.802, Tower B6 Project Cherry County, GH5B, Tech Zone-IV, Greater Noida, G. B. Nagar or in alternative to pay Rs.15,000/- per month. The Ld. Trial Court has also directed him to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance towards minor child from the date and month of filing of the petition and VIRENDER th KUMAR same is to be paid by the 10 of every month by money order or BANSAL by depositing in the bank account of the complainant/petitioner. Digitally signed by VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2023.09.12 Arrears should be cleared within six months but that order is not 16:03:15 +0530 challenged in the present appeal.
CA no.44/2022 Kuldeep Ashok Vs. Meenakshi Page 8/1615. Notice of the appeal was given to the complainant/respondent. She also put appearance. Trial Court record was requisitioned.
16. I have heard Ld. counsel for the appellant, Ld. counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
17. Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court has passed the order of residence and in the alternative to pay Rs.15,000/- per month without considering all the facts. Ld. counsel submitted that infact the complainant/respondent is working as teacher in HHKM Inter College and her monthly income is Rs.87,520/- per month. She is earning more than the appellant herein but she is not ready to spend even a single penny to meet her expenses. She has even compelled the appellant herein to pay her LIC premium and EMI of her car no. DL- 8CAM-3874 which she purchased prior to her marriage. The appellant herein paid Rs.3,06,900/- vide cheque no.113303 on 04.04.2016 with respect to that car. He has also purchased various other items i.e T.V, fridge, washing machine, AC and mixer grinder for a sum of Rs.1,18,208/-.
18. Ld. counsel submitted that during the subsistence of marriage on 14.03.2017, appellant herein had purchased flat bearing no.802, 8th Floor, Block B6, Plot No.GH-5B, Techzone IV, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP in the joint names of himself and the complainant/respondent for a consideration of Rs.64,83,534/- vide registered sale deed dated 14.03.2017. Ld. counsel submitted that infact the entire payment VIRENDER KUMAR was made by the appellant herein through his own funds. Ld. BANSAL counsel submitted that after purchasing the flat, the Digitally signed by VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL complainant/respondent started creating nuisance in the family Date: 2023.09.12 16:03:23 +0530 and also created dispute as she wanted the entire flat to be CA no.44/2022 Kuldeep Ashok Vs. Meenakshi Page 9/16 transferred in her name. Ld. counsel submitted that she wanted to grab that flat by hook or crook, therefore, the appellant herein has to file civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the complainant/respondent, which is pending trial before the Family Court at Gautam Budh Nagar, UP.
19. Ld. counsel further submitted that due to nuisance created by the complaint/respondent, appellant was compelled to let out half portion of the said flat at of Rs.6,000/- per month and he himself is residing at rental accommodation at a monthly rent of Rs.11,000/- per month. Ld. counsel submitted that the general rental value of flat at Cheery County is Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month. Ld. counsel submitted that the complainant/respondent also tried to trespass in the aforesaid flat and also misbehaved with the tenant and in this regard a complaint has already been filed. Ld. counsel submitted that the Ld. MM has failed to appreciate all these facts and also that she is working as school teacher and earning much more than the appellant herein, which is also evident from the income tax return placed on record.
20. Ld. counsel submitted that the complainant/respondent has not come to Court with clean hands. She has suppressed material facts. There are contradictions in her affidavit filed before the Ld. Trial Court showing her income and assets. Ld. counsel submitted that admittedly she is residing in the house of her parents. She has not asked for residence initially. It was only later on she moved the application. Ld. counsel submitted that though in the affidavit filed by the complainant/respondent, she alleges VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL that she is living in rental accommodation at house no.C-9/286, Digitally signed Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. In her earlier affidavit she has mentioned by VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2023.09.12 16:03:29 +0530 that she is residing with her parents. Ld. counsel submitted that CA no.44/2022 Kuldeep Ashok Vs. Meenakshi Page 10/16 the present complaint has been filed only to extract more and more money and to pressurize the appellant herein who has filed divorce petition against the present complainant/respondent and the present complaint is also a counter blast to that.
21. Ld. counsel further submitted that she has not come to Court with clean hands which is evident from her affidavit filed affidavit in 2018 before the Family Court, Karkardooma Courts Delhi, which mentions that there are four persons dependent upon her but she has not disclosed, who are those family members who are dependent upon her. Ld. counsel submitted that similarly in her earlier affidavit which was filed before the Mahila Court, she has shown her monthly income as Rs.73,000/- per month and there she has mentioned that she is residing in house no.C-9/266, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi i.e. her parental house. Ld. counsel submitted that as all through she was residing with her parents, now all of sudden she has alleged that she is now residing in rental accommodation only to extort more money. Ld. counsel submitted that as there is nothing on record to show that she is residing in rental accommodation and as she is earning much more than the appellant herein which is evident from documentary evidence and her income tax return placed on record, it is prayed that her request for residence be declined and the order of the Ld. Trial Court be set-aside as the Ld. Trial Court has not considered all these facts.
22. Ld. counsel for the complainant/respondent submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly awarded right to residence and in the alternative rent of Rs.15,000/- per month to be paid to the VIRENDER KUMAR complainant/respondent. It is a reasoned and detailed order. Ld. BANSAL counsel submitted that earlier complainant/respondent was Digitally signed by VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2023.09.12 16:03:35 +0530 residing with her parents but presently she is residing in rental CA no.44/2022 Kuldeep Ashok Vs. Meenakshi Page 11/16 accommodation. Ld. counsel submitted that as brother of the complainant/respondent was going to be married and space in the house of her father was no sufficient, therefore, she had to shift to rental accommodation. Ld. counsel submitted that there is a flat purchased in the joint name of the complainant/respondent and appellant herein which he has admitted. As she is now living separately, therefore, she requires residence and that has been considered by the Ld. Trial Court and rightly came to the conclusion that rental value of the flat is around Rs.15,000/-.
23. Ld. counsel submitted that so far as the appellant is concerned, he has alleged that he is living in rental accommodation but surprisingly he is not residing in the flat which was purchased in the joint name. Ld. counsel submitted that the appellant has mentioned that he has let out only half portion of the flat but in the rent agreement copy of which has been placed on record, there is no such mention that it was half portion of the flat which has been rented out. Ld. counsel further submitted that flat which the appellant has taken on rent is situated F-606, 6th Floor, Supertech Livingston, Crossing Republik, Ghazibad, UP. The copy of rent agreement with respect to flat which he has taken on rent is placed on record which shows the rental value is around Rs.11,000/- per month. Ld. counsel submitted that it is unbelievable that he has rented out the entire flat for a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month but has taken a flat on rent at monthly rent of Rs.11,000/- per month. Ld. counsel further submitted that the flat which the appellant has taken on rent is far away from his office than the flat which has VIRENDER KUMAR been allegedly rented out by the appellant herein. Ld. counsel BANSAL submitted that this itself shows that there is something wrong and Digitally signed by VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL fishy as he would have saved much more amount on travelling as Date: 2023.09.12 16:03:43 +0530 CA no.44/2022 Kuldeep Ashok Vs. Meenakshi Page 12/16 well as time if he would have stayed in the flat purchased in the joint name of the complainant/respondent and the appellant herein. The Ld. Trial Court has considered all these facts and passed reasoned order. Ld. counsel submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and same be dismissed.
24. After hearing arguments and considering all the facts, I found that though much arguments have been made by Ld. counsel for the appellant on the salary and expenditure of the complainant/respondent but the only order which is under challenge in the present appeal is with respect to residence order or in alternative payment of Rs.15,000/- per month as rent. Therefore, the only consideration is whether the complainant/respondent is entitled for residence or not. Admittedly and as evident from the affidavit of the complainant/respondent, she was earlier residing with her parents and she has also given reason that as her brother is going to be married that is why she requires the residence. She has also alleged that space is less in the house of her father, therefore, she has shifted to rental accommodation at C-9/286, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. She is also having a child master Kiaan born out of wedlock, who is also residing with her. Even otherwise it is not the responsibility of her parents to provide her residence after her marriage, rather it is the duty and responsibility of her husband. As per law she has right to reside in shared household. Here in this case admittedly there is a flat which is purchased in the joint names of appellant and complainant/respondent i.e Flat no.802, Tower B-6, Project Cherry County, GH5B, Tech Zone-IV, VIRENDER Greater Noida, G. B. Nagar. KUMAR BANSAL
25. It has been argued by Ld. counsel for the appellant that he Digitally signed by VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL is residing in a rental accommodation and the rent deed has Date: 2023.09.12 16:03:48 +0530 CA no.44/2022 Kuldeep Ashok Vs. Meenakshi Page 13/16 already been placed on record. Admittedly, the flat which is in the joint name is nearer to his place of work than the one which he has taken on rent. It is also important to note that the appellant has rented out the flat for a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month only though according to the appellant himself, the rental value of the flat which has been rented out by him for Rs.6,000/- per month is between Rs.10,000/- per month to Rs.12,000/- per month. There is no explanation as to why he has rented out the flat for half of that rental value. He has alleged that he has rented out only half portion of the flat but there is no mention in the rent agreement, copy of which has been placed on record, that only half portion of the flat is rented out and not the entire flat. The rent agreement reveals that the flat is rented out for a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month which itself creates doubt. Firstly, why he has rented out the flat for a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month only and himself residing in another rented accommodation which he has taken on rent at monthly rent of Rs.11,000/- per month. Secondly, the accommodation which he has taken on rent is far away from his place of work than the one which he has rented out.
26. It is also important to note that though the flat is in the joint name but he is not allowing the complainant/respondent to even enter in the society. It has come on record that he has issued instructions that she be not allowed to enter the society which clearly shows that he does not want her to even visit the accommodation which is in their joint name and that is why he has created that document and alleges that he has rented out that VIRENDER flat though only for half of the actual rental value. KUMAR BANSAL
27. Keeping in view the fact that it is not the responsibility of Digitally signed by VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL the parents to provide her accommodation though they were Date: 2023.09.12 16:03:55 +0530 already providing her but now space in the house of her father is CA no.44/2022 Kuldeep Ashok Vs. Meenakshi Page 14/16 falling short as brother of the complainant/respondent is going to be married. Therefore, she cannot be asked to continue live at the mercy of her parents and shall not bother appellant herein to arrange accommodation for her despite the fact that they have purchased property in the joint name i.e. appellant herein as well as complainant/respondent. It is settled law that a woman has right to reside in shared household irrespective of her having legal interest in the same as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Manmohan Attavar vs Neelam Attavar, AIR 2017 SC 3345. Here in this case also, complainant/respondent is having legal right being the joint owner but still she is denied the right of residence that also on the ground that she shall continue to reside with her parents even if there is no space available in that house. It is also settled law that if separate house is not available then she is entitled to receive rent as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Kiran Patidar vs. Sanjay Patidar, 2020 Volume 1 SC 646.
28. Under the Provision of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the appellant is required to provide residence to the wife taking into consideration social security and protection deserved by the complainant/respondent. It is clear that she is entitled to residence in the form of alternative accommodation and as a last resort is entitle to rent for that alternate accommodation if circumstances so requires. It goes without saying that wife is entitled to residence in shared household in the first instance but in case for any unavoidable exceptional circumstance she has to be provided other residence VIRENDER KUMAR which has to be a property commensurate with her life style and BANSAL current residence depending upon other circumstances. Mere Digitally signed by VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2023.09.12 16:04:01 +0530 offering money for alternate accommodation would not be a CA no.44/2022 Kuldeep Ashok Vs. Meenakshi Page 15/16 solution.
29. Here in the present case as per the averments brought on record, complainant/respondent and her son were residing in rental accommodation but the belongings of the complainant/respondent and even of her son, who is son of the appellant herein also, were thrown on the road. When she came to know that her belongings and that of her son have been thrown on road, she collected their belongings and as she was not having any other accommodation because she was not even allowed to enter in the society, where there is a flat jointly owned by them is situated, she has to stay with her parents. In the present case, considering all these facts, the Ld. Trial Court has granted relief of alternate accommodation be provided to her and if not provided then under the compelling circumstances, the Court has ordered Rs.15,000/- per month be paid to her. Considering all these facts and merely because she is capable of earning, she cannot be denied right of residence which otherwise she is entitled to.
30. Keeping in view all these facts and the law on the subject, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The Ld. Trial Court has considered all the facts and averments. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
31. Copy of the order along with Trial Court record be sent back. Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR
32. File be consigned to the Record Room.
BANSAL
KUMAR Date:
BANSAL 2023.09.12
16:04:08
+0530
Announced in the open (V. K. BANSAL)
court today i.e on Principal District & Sessions Judge,
12th September, 2023 North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CA no.44/2022 Kuldeep Ashok Vs. Meenakshi Page 16/16