Delhi District Court
Mr. Dinesh Kumar vs Mrs. Angoori on 30 July, 2016
Criminal Appeal No.1171/16
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. : 1171/2016
Under Section : 12 of The Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Police Station : M.S. Park
Case No. : V-207/15
Unique I.D. No. : 433722016
In the matter of :-
1. Mr. DINESH KUMAR
S/o. Sh. Chander Bhan,
R/o. 1449/910, A-21, Gali No.8,
Jagjivan Nagar, Near Nala,
Shahdara, Delhi-1100093.
2. Mrs. SANGEETA
W/o. Sh. Dinesh Kumar,
R/o. 1449/910, A-21, Gali No.8,
Jagjivan Nagar, Near Nala,
Shahdara, Delhi-1100093.
..............APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. Mrs. ANGOORI
W/o. Sh. Chander Bhan,
R/o. 1449/910, A-21, Gali No.8,
Jagjivan Nagar, Near Nala,
Shahdara, Delhi-1100093.
2. THE GOVT. of NCT of DELHI
............RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 02.06.2016
Date of receiving the case in this court : 03.06.2016
Date of reserving order : 25.07.2016
Date of pronouncement : 30.07.2016
Decision : Appeal is partly allowed.
Page 1 of 7 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Appeal No.1171/16
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal preferred against the order dated 03.05.2016, passed by trial court in a case titled as Angoori Devi vs. Dinesh & ors., bearing case No. V-207/2015 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as Act). Vide impugned order, the trial court directed the respondents (appellants herein) to remove their belongings from a part of house no. 1449/910, A- 21, Gali No. 8, Jagjivan Nagar, near Nala, Shahdara, Delhi and unlock that portion, so as to handover the vacant possession thereof to the respondent herein, within the four weeks of passing of order by trial court. The appellants were further restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the applicant.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent filed a complaint against appellants under Section 12 of The Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She alleged that appellant no. 1 is her son and appellant no. 2 is her daughter-in-law. It was love marriage between them and since arrival of appellant no. 2 in the matrimonial home, she started misbehaving with all family members including complainant and her husband (i.e. parents of appellant no. 1). Complainant further alleged that appellant no. 1 started beating his parents under influence of appellant no. 2 and they used to quarrel with them without any reason. In such circumstances, husband of the complainant disowned both appellants from his all movable and immovable property and such notice was also published in daily newspaper on 03.06.2010. As per complainant (respondent herein), motive of appellants was to dispossess her and her husband from the property in question and to grab the entire property. They had not been Page 2 of 7 (Pulastya Pramachala) Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No.1171/16 paying a single penny towards maintenance of complainant and other charges of this property viz. electricity and water charges. Complainant prayed for protection order under Section 18, residence order under Section 19, monetary relief under Section 20, compensation under Section 22 as well as interim relief. She also prayed for restraint order against the appellants from entering the property in question.
3. Complainant also filed application under Section 23 of the Act, thereby seeking restraint order against the appellants for committing domestic violence against the appellants and also to vacate the property in question.
4. Both appellants filed a reply to this application and pleaded that they had been residing in the property in question peacefully in their own rights. They claimed that they had been residing in the property as obedient son and daughter-in-law of the complainant and denied the allegations made by the complainant. They alleged that it was the complainant who had been creating all sorts of problems and hindrances in the normal life of the appellants and she had been bend upon to throw the appellants out of the premises.
5. Along with the complaint, a notice dated 09.07.2015 issued by advocate on behalf of complainant to the appellants, was also filed. Vide this notice, husband of the complainant had alleged that they had been harassing and humiliating him as well as his wife. He further gave notice to the appellants, so as to terminate their license to reside in this property by withdrawing his premises for their residing in this property and directed them to vacate the premises.
6. Being aggrieved of the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, appellants have preferred this appeal on the following grounds :-
Page 3 of 7 (Pulastya Pramachala)Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No.1171/16 ● The trial court erred in holding the appellants guilty under Section 12 of The Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and failed to appreciate that respondent no. 2 was also a woman, against whom the complaint under Section 12 of The Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was not maintainable. ● The trial court failed to appreciate that luggage of the appellants lying in one room of the premises belonged to appellant no. 2 and order of vacating or eviction was not maintainable against her. ● The trial court failed to appreciate that the appellant no.1 had contributed huge money in the construction of this property and he was living there in his own legal right.
● The trial court failed to appreciate that complainant was not the owner of this house and she was also residing there merely as a licensee. Hence, the order of vacation passed in her favour and against the appellants, is bad in the eyes of law.
● The trial court failed to appreciate that provisions of The Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were not applicable against the woman and hence the impugned order is not legal. ARGUMENTS :-
7. Ld. counsel for appellants made same arguments as per plea taken in the grounds of appeal. On the other hand, the written submission was filed on behalf of respondent stating that during pendency of case before trial court, appellants had left the premises on their own. However, some of their articles are still lying in the ground floor of the property. The arguments further referred to the factual aspects as per allegations made by complainant/respondent no.1 before the trial court. The arguments are silent in respect of legal questions raised on behalf of appellants.
Page 4 of 7 (Pulastya Pramachala)Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No.1171/16 FINDINGS :-
8. From the contentions and grounds raised by the appellants, two questions are posed before this court for decision. The first question is that whether complainant being mother-in-law could implead appellant no.2 as respondent in her complaint, so as to seek any relief against her? The contentions of the appellants are that appellant no.2 herself is a women and complaint against her is not maintainable under the Act nor any order of eviction can be passed against her.
9. This question is no more res integra as having faced similar question, High Court of Delhi in the cases of Versha Kapoor v. Union of India, 2010 (VI) AD Delhi 472 and Kusum Lata Sharma v. State, Crl. M.C. No.725/2011, decided on 02.09.2011, held that even a female can be a respondent under the Act in question. Therefore, this argument cannot be sustained that being woman appellant no.2 could not be impleaded as respondent in a complaint filed by respondent no.1 herein under Section 12 of the Act. In fact, in another case Krishna Ponnuswamy v. Amantha, 2011 SCC Online Mad 1396, Madras High Court observed that mother- in-law can bring an action against her daughter-in-law under the Act.
10. The next question relates to the legality of directions given in the impugned order. The operative part of the order is as under "Accordingly, in light of facts and circumstances of the case, this court deems it fit to direct the respondent no.1 to remove their belongings from house bearing No.1449/910, A-21, Gali No.8, Jagjivan Nagar, near Nala, Shahdara, Delhi-93 and unlocked the portion, which is stated to in their lock and key and handover the vacant possession thereof to the applicant within four weeks. Respondent no.1 and 2 are further restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the applicant."
Page 5 of 7 (Pulastya Pramachala)Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No.1171/16
11. The trial court record as well as impugned order show that both the appellants had given their statement before ld. MM that they had been residing separately at Chhattarpur. The order was perhaps based under Section 19 of the Act, as same finds mention in the impugned order. Section 19 (1) (b) and 19 (1) (c) of the Act read as under :-
(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.
12. In the present case, since both the appellants were already residing separately from the complainant/respondent no.1 herein, there was no occasion to direct them to remove themselves from the shared household. Ld. MM was in fact conscious of this fact, while holding that appellant no.2 was not entitled for protection accorded by the proviso to Section 19 (1) of the Act.
13. Apparently, ld. MM did not pass directions to the appellants to remove themselves from the property in question for the reasons that they were already residing separately. However, ld. MM passed the order against appellant no.1 to remove his belongings and to vacate one portion of the premises, which is under his lock. This relief is nowhere related to alleged incidents of domestic violence. Such relief is nowhere covered under Section 19 of the Act. This relief cannot be granted even under Section 19 (1) (b) because such relief indirectly amounts to pass an order of eviction based on separate cause of action. That separate cause of action is that property in question is in the name of husband of the complainant, who has debarred the appellants from his property and has also given a notice to them to withdraw his permission to reside in property in question.
Page 6 of 7 (Pulastya Pramachala)Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No.1171/16 Therefore, it is for husband of the complainant to bring suitable action against the appellants, if he wants vacation of a particular portion of his property, which is under lock of appellant no.1.
14. Therefore, I do find need to modify impugned order. The impugned order has to be modified to make it in consonance with alleged facts of the case and Section 19 (1) (c) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.05.2016 shall be read in the terms that both appellants shall not enter the property no.1449/910, A-21, Gali No.8, Jagjivan Nagar, near Nala, Shahdara, Delhi-93. Appeal is accordingly partly allowed.
15. TCR along with copy of judgment be sent back to the trial court.
16. Both parties are directed to appear before the trial court on date fixed by the trial court.
File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 30.07.2016 Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) (This order contains 7 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page 7 of 7 (Pulastya Pramachala) Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi