Delhi District Court
Reena Grover vs Ramesh Grover And Ors on 7 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Sh. PURSHOTAM PATHAK
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLST01-002331-2024
CA No. 108/2024
REEENA GROVER
R/O D-1/25, DLF CITY PHASE 1,
GURUGRAM, HARYANA - 122002
....... APPELLANT
VERSUS
(1) RAMESH GROVER
S/O RAM LAL GROVER
H/O Mrs. REENA GROVER
R/O C-7 GREEN PARK (MAIN)
NEW DELHI-11006
(2) SH. RAJESH GROVER
S/O SH. RAMESH GROVER
R/O C-7 GREEN PARK (MAIN)
NEW DELHI-11006
(3) SH. RAGHU RAJ GROVER
S/O SH. RAJESH GROVER
R/O C-7 GREEN PARK (MAIN)
NEW DELHI-11006 ....... RESPONDENTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 18.03.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 12.07.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 07.09.2024
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Digitally signed
by PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK CA No. 108/2024
Date: 2024.09.07 Reena Grover vs. Ramesh Grover 1
17:25:40 +1000
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall decide the present appeal filed u/s 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as "DV Act") against the impugned order dt. 29.02.2024 passed by Ld. MM-03, Mahila Court, South District, Saket Courts in CT Case No. 1511/2023 titled as "Reena Grover Vs. Ramesh Grover & Ors.". Vide impugned order, Ld. Trial Court disallowed the application u/s 19 r/w 23 DV Act, moved by complainant seeking entry into shared household.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that a complaint u/s 12 of DV Act was filed by the appellant/wife stating that she got married to the respondent no.1 in the year 1964 and since then she has been residing at her matrimonial home at C-7, Green Park, South Delhi. Three children were born out of the said wedlock, two sons and one daughter. It is alleged that the respondents are not ready to give the share in property to her daughter and the dispute arose as the complainant took the side of her daughter. Complaint also alleged infliction of emotional, mental and economic abuse by the hands of respondents. It is claimed that the PURSHOTTAM PATHAK complainant on 13.04.2023 moved out of her matrimonial home and shifted Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2024.09.07 CA No. 108/2024 17:26:05 +1000 Reena Grover vs. Ramesh Grover 2 to B-5/204, Safdarjung Enclave for a temporary period to get her treatment done and when she tried to enter her matrimonial home on 08.07.2023, she was denied entry therein.
3. Appellant has filed the instant appeal assailing the impugned order on various grounds which can be summarized as under:
i. that the Ld. MM failed to consider the written arguments in the matter.
ii. that the Ld. MM failed to appreciate the order of Sr. Civil Judge, dt. 16.01.2024 and also did not consider the order dt. 15.09.2023, passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
iii. that the Ld. MM failed to appreciate that even if assuming the respondent no.1 was in constructive possession, he could at best put the petitioner in constructive possession and not actual possession.
iv. that the Ld. MM ignored the fact that the petitioner was not staying in Safdarjung Enclave house, but in Gurgaon with her grandson, which is evident from written arguments filed by the complainant.
v. that the Ld. MM failed to consider the medical documents, health and age of the petitioner and that she cannot stay alone in the house in Safdarjung Enclave.
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK vi. that the Ld. MM erroneously noted in the order that the appellant voluntarily left the matrimonial home wherein her Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK going out for medical treatment has been considered as Date: 2024.09.07 17:26:14 +1000 CA No. 108/2024 Reena Grover vs. Ramesh Grover 3 leaving the matrimonial home which is completely wrong and contrary to the record.
vii. that the Ld. MM failed to note that the respondents have not provided any alternate accommodation to the appellant as admittedly they were not in possession of the house in Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi to put her in possession of the same.
viii. that the Ld. MM has failed to note that it has been stated that the appellant's daughter has asked her to move out of the house and the averments regarding the same were already there and the fact that appellant was not residing in that house.
4. In reply, respondents have denied and controverted the averments of appeal submitting that the rights of appellant have been rightly recognized by the trial court and she has been given an alternate accommodation. It is stated that on 13.04.2023. the appellant left the respondents house willfully and started living in the house no. B-5/204, Safdarjung Enclave, which is owned by respondent no. 1. On the same day i.e. 13.04.2013, she also filed a complaint to the police in which she stated that she has moved to and is residing in Safdarjung enclave property. It has been stated that some property dispute is going on between the family members and the appellant who is in the side of daughter has on PURSHOTTAM PATHAK the insistence of daughter has filed the present complaint. Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2024.09.07 CA No. 108/2024 17:26:22 +1000 Reena Grover vs. Ramesh Grover 4
5. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record
6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned order is illegal as the Ld. MM arrogated to itself power/jurisdiction otherwise exclusively exercisable by a competent court of civil jurisdiction and decided the petition in sheer disregard to the orders passed by superior courts. He further argued that the Ld. Trial Court grossly misconstrued that the appellant had gone at Safdarjung Enclave house only for the purpose of medical treatment and same cannot be considered as leaving the matrimonial home. It has been prayed that impugned order be set aside and it should be ensured that the respondents do not create any barriers in the enjoyment of the appellant in the property at C-7, Green Park, New Delhi. Ld. Counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon judgment in case tiled as Abhay Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Crl. Revision No. 1089/2017, decided on 12.10.2018, Divya vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P (Crl.) No. 1140/2022 & Crl. M.A No. 9666/2022, decided on PURSHOTTAM 11.04.2023, Kavita Dass vs. NCT of Delhi & Anr., Crl. M.C No. PATHAK 4282/2011 & Crl. M.A No. 19670/2011, decided on 17.04.2012, Ambika Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2024.09.07 17:26:28 +1000 CA No. 108/2024 Reena Grover vs. Ramesh Grover 5 Jain & Ors. vs. Ram Prakash Sharma & Ors., RFA No. 222/2019, RFA No. 230/2019, decided on 18.12.2019 and Sneha Ahuja vs. Satish Chander Ahuja & Ors., CM (M) No. 380/2021 & CM Appeal No. 17058/2021, decided on 15.11.2021, .
7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents argued that the appeal has been filed only to harass and grab the property of respondent No. 1. She further argued that the appellant left the matrimonial home to reside in another property belonging to the respondent No. 1, on her own will. She also argued that the appellant, since the time she left the matrimonial house and till the filing of complaint under DV Act, remained in Safdarjung Enclave property and had not shifted to the Gurgoan as claimed by the appellant. She also submitted that respondent no. 1 is ready to give any other alternate accommodation to the appellant if she desires.
8. Sections 2(s), 17, 19 (1) and its proviso of DV Act read as under:
"2. Definitions. .......................... In this act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- PURSHOTTAM PATHAK .....................
.......................................
(s) "Shared household" means a household where the person Digitally signed by aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship PURSHOTTAM PATHAK either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a Date: 2024.09.07 17:26:38 +1000 CA No. 108/2024 Reena Grover vs. Ramesh Grover 6 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, equity and includes such a 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 shared household;
......................................................................
17. Right to reside in a shared household.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. (2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law.
..................
19. Residence orders.--(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order--
(a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household;
(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;
(d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared household or encumbering the same;
(e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or
(f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require:
Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against PURSHOTTAM PATHAK any person who is a woman.
.....................................................".Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2024.09.07 17:26:44 +1000 CA No. 108/2024 Reena Grover vs. Ramesh Grover 7
9. In her petition under section 12 DV Act the appellant has sought the relief of residence order under section 19, directing the respondent to give her right to live in the shared household wherein she has lived for 61 years or pass an order directing respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation or pay Rs. 1,00,000/- per month for rent.
The application under section 19 DV Act was dismissed observing that the complainant cannot insist on residing in the Green Park property when her husband has already offered a suitable accommodation and also in order to avoid further acrimony between the parties and multiplicity of proceedings, it will be appropriate that complainant continues to reside at the Safdarjung property of respondent no.1.
10. The appellant has confined her relief in the prayer clause of appeal, only to ensure that respondents do not create any barrier in enjoyment of appellant in the property at C-7, Green Park New Delhi. Arguments on aspect of denial of right of residence to the appellant in her matrimonial home by the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order dated 29.02.2024 have been heard and record carefully perused. The admitted PURSHOTTAM PATHAK case of parties is that the appellant was married to the respondent no. 1 in Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2024.09.07 17:26:51 +1000 CA No. 108/2024 Reena Grover vs. Ramesh Grover 8 the year 1964 and since 13.04.2023, she is not residing in her matrimonial home.
11. The complainant has made several allegations against the respondents that they were causing mental harassment which has made her life miserable and she had to move to her house B5/204 Safdarjung Enclave with her daughter and her family. Even in the complaint under section 12 DV Act in prayer clause (iii) she has submitted that the respondents may be ordered/ directed to move into alternate accommodations as there is danger to her life in matrimonial house. Meaning thereby, she herself is admitting that the matrimonial house is not a safe place for her where she can live with respondents. The allegations of domestic violence have been made not only against the husband but also against the son and grandson of appellant, who all are residing in the same house in which residence order is being sought. Considering all these circumstances, it would be highly inappropriate to permit the appellant to go and reside at the shared household as it will simply result in further litigation and dispute between the parties, as rightly observed by Ld. Trial court.
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2024.09.07 CA No. 108/2024 17:26:57 +1000 Reena Grover vs. Ramesh Grover 9
12. Ld. Counsel has tried to argue that some civil dispute is pending in respect of the Safdarjung property between the respondent no. 1 and his daughter and there was a status quo order of Hon'ble High Court qua the said property, at the time of passing of impugned order hence, the Ld. Trial Court was not justified in granting alternate accommodation in the same house. Perusal of record shows that the wife has already shifted to Safdarjung house on13.04.2023, much prior to the passing of status quo order of Hon'ble High Court. In my opinion, this cannot justify an inference that the husband is not the owner of the property. The said order in no way affects the right of residence of the appellant and there is no positive proof of any apprehension for dispossession from the said property, that too when husband has already given an undertaking that he has no objection if Court grants her right to residence in said property.
13. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also contended that the written arguments filed by the complainant at the time of the deciding the application U/s 19 DV Act wherein, it was mentioned that the complainant is living in Gurgoan, was not considered by the Ld. Court while passing the impugned order. Mere non mentioning of a fact that too which was PURSHOTTAM PATHAK brought for the first time in the written statement and was nowhere Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK CA No. 108/2024 Date: 2024.09.07 17:27:05 +1000 Reena Grover vs. Ramesh Grover 10 pleaded, does not mean that same was not considered. Ld. Trial Court has specifically mentioned that complainant is currently residing at Safdarjung property. There was nothing on record for the Trial Court to come to a conclusion that the complainant has shifted to Gurgaon from Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi. I do not find any reason to take a view different from what Trial Court has taken.
14. There is no dispute as to the legal propositions laid down by the judgments relied upon by the appellant. However, they are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
15. It seems that this entire case of appellant revolves around some kind of property dispute. The aggrieved wife has been repeatedly raising disputes regarding some property and wants some share in the property for her daughter and nothing else.
16. In the available circumstances, I am of view that no relief as prayed for by the complainant could have been granted by Ld. Magistrate. PURSHOTTAM PATHAK The appellant/ wife has not been able to show as to how these findings of Ld. Magistrate are illegal. I have no hesitation in holding that the right of Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK appellant to reside in the matrimonial home has been rightly declined by Date: 2024.09.07 17:27:13 +1000 CA No. 108/2024 Reena Grover vs. Ramesh Grover 11 the Ld. Trial Court. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order dated 29.02.2024 to this effect and do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
17. In view of the reasons given, the present appeal stands dismissed. The impugned order dated 29.02.2024 is upheld.
18. TCR alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
19. A copy of this judgment be supplied to Ld. Counsels forthwith.
20. Appeal file be consigned to the Record Room after due Digitally signed compliance. by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2024.09.07 17:27:20 +1000 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH) 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 SAKET COURTS: N.D CA No. 108/2024 Reena Grover vs. Ramesh Grover 12