Delhi District Court
Roop Misra And Anr vs Nidhi Misra on 19 April, 2025
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, CIVIL
JUDGE-01 (SOUTH) SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No:- 1244/17
CNR No:- DLST03-002179-2017
1. SMT. ROOP MISRA
W/o WG CDR A.K. Misra (Retd)
R/o H-35B, Saket,
New Delhi-110017 ......PLAINTIFF NO. 1
2. WG. CDR. A. K. MISRA
S/o Late Sh. R. S. Misra
R/o H-35B, Saket,
New Delhi-110017 ......PLAINTIFF NO. 2
VERSUS
SMT. NIDHI MISRA
W/o Sh. Anubhav Misra
R/o H-35B, Saket,
New Delhi-110017 ......DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 19.12.2017
Date of Decision : 19.04.2025
Date of framing of issues : 27.01.2020
Date of final arguments : 04.02.2025
Decision : DISMISSED
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT:-
1. The present suit is being filed by the plaintiffs seeking Digitally signed ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV SHARMA Page no. 1 of 33 SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19 17:01:12 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA relief of permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant in respect of the suit property bearing no. H-35B, Saket, New Delhi- 110017 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property").
2. It is pertinent to mention that originally, there were two defendants in the present suit - (i) the present defendant and (ii) her husband, Mr. Anubhav Misra, who is also the son of the plaintiffs. However, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking deletion of the name of Mr. Anubhav Misra from the array of parties and withdrawal of reliefs sought against him on the ground that he had vacated and left the suit property. Accordingly, vide order dated 25.04.2018, Mr. Anubhav Misra was deleted from the present suit.
AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT:-
3. Succinctly, it is the case of the plaintiffs is that Plaintiff No. 1 is the absolute owner and is in possession of the suit property, which is his self-acquired property. The defendant is the daughter- in-law of the plaintiffs and started residing in the suit property as licensee in the second bedroom after her marriage to Mr. Anubhav Misra. She also uses the common areas of the suit property along with the plaintiffs.
4. It is submitted that since the year 2015, the defendant, in collusion with her husband, has been exerting pressure upon the plaintiffs to transfer the ownership of the suit property in her name.
Digitally signed by ANUBHAVANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19 Page no. 2 of 33 17:01:19 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA The plaintiffs have also been subjected to continuous mental harassment by the defendant. The defendant, in connivance with her husband, filed false and frivolous criminal complaint bearing CT Case No. 12580/17 titled "Nidhi Mishra vs. Anubhav Mishra & Ors." against the plaintiffs which is pending before the Hon'ble Mahila Court (MM-02), South District, Saket, New Delhi.
5. It is further mentioned that the plaintiffs have a genuine and reasonable apprehension that the defendant may forcibly dispossess them from the suit property in order to fulfill her unlawful intentions. It is further submitted that the defendant habitually calls the police by dialing 100 without any justifiable reason, causing continuous panic, fear, and harassment to the plaintiffs. The continued stay of the defendant in the suit property is causing severe mental distress and trauma to the plaintiffs. Despite repeated requests, the defendant and her husband have refused to vacate the premises. Having left with no other option, present suit was filed seeking following reliefs: -
(i) Pass a decree for mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendant to vacate the suit property i.e. H-35B, Saket, New Delhi (2nd bedroom) along with their belongings;
(ii) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her agents, successors, legal heirs, family members, servants etc. from interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property; and Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19 Page no. 3 of 33 17:01:26 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
(iii) Any other relief.
AVERMENTS IN WRITTEN STATEMENT:-
6. Per contra, the defendant respectfully submits that the present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed at the very outset for being devoid of any basis or merit. It has been filed solely with the intent to illegally evict the defendant from her matrimonial home.
7. Further, the suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, as it discloses no cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs. The property in question is the matrimonial home of the defendant, where she resides lawfully with her two minor children, aged 10 and 8 years. The plaintiffs have suppressed material facts, notably, in Complaint Case No. 12580/17, the Ld. MM (Mahila Court), Saket, passed an order dated 03.11.2017, restraining the plaintiffs' son from forcibly dispossessing the defendant. This crucial order has been deliberately concealed from this Hon'ble Court.
8. Additionally, the present suit is a counterblast to the domestic violence proceedings initiated by the defendant under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The plaintiffs' claim that their son vacated the property is misleading, as in other proceedings, he has merely stated that he shifted to Pune for work-indicating clear collusion.
9. Moreover, it is mentioned that the defendant had also Digitally signed ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19 Page no. 4 of 33 17:01:37 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to registration of an FIR against the plaintiffs and their son for acts of cruelty and harassment. The defendant continues to face both mental and physical abuse at their hands. The plaintiffs have failed to seek relief of possession and have instead filed this suit for injunction only to evade payment of appropriate court fees, rendering the suit non-maintainable.
10. It is averred that the suit is also barred under Section 10 CPC, as the plaintiffs have already initiated parallel proceedings-- Petition No. 16/2018 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007--before the District Magistrate, Saket, seeking eviction of the defendant. The existence of this petition was not disclosed, thereby showing that the plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands. Furthermore, in the DV proceedings, the Ld. MM vide interim order dated 20.02.2018, has restrained the plaintiffs from forcibly dispossessing the defendant, which has also been suppressed in the present suit.
11. The defendant reiterates that she is residing lawfully in her matrimonial home, and the allegations made by the plaintiffs are false and denied in toto. Further, defendant described various incidents where acts of domestic violence has been committed against her by the plaintiffs and their son. All the other averments of the plaint are denied. Hence, it is prayed that suit be dismissed. REPLICATION:-
Digitally signed by ANUBHAVANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19 Page no. 5 of 33 17:01:44 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
12. In replication, averments of the plaint have been reiterated and contents of the written statement have been denied. however, it is admitted that the petition filed by the plaintiffs before District Magistrate under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizen Act was rejected by the District Magistrate.
ISSUES:-
13. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 27.01.2020:-
(i) Whether the defendant is residing in the second bedroom of the suit property as the licensee of plaintiff? OPP
(ii) Whether defendant has illegally refused to vacate the above said portion despite the termination of license by plaintiff? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction, as sought for? OPP
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction, as sought for? OPP
(v) Whether the present suit is barred by the principle of res-judicata u/S 11 CPC? OPD
(vi) Whether the present suit is barred u/S 27 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Page no. 6 of 33 2025.04.19
17:01:50 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
Citizen Act, 2007? OPD
(vii) Whether the present suit has been filed in collusion with the son of plaintiff namely Anubhav Mishra who was earlier the defendant no. 1 in the suit? OPD
(viii) Whether the plaintiff has approached the court without clean hands and by suppressing and misrepresenting material facts before the court? OPD
(ix) Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE:-
14. To prove their case, plaintiff no. 1 herself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and tendered her affidavit as Ex. PW1/A. She placed reliance upon the following documents:
(i) Ex. PW1/B (OSR) i.e. Copy of Aadhar card;
(ii) Mark A i.e. Copy of site plan;
(iii) Ex. PW1/C (OSR) i.e. Conveyance deed;
(iv) Mark B i.e. Copy of order dated 03.11.2017;
(v) Mark C i.e. Copy of complaint under Section 12 DV Act; and
(vi) Mark D i.e. Discharge summary dated 10.11.2017.
15. PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant. Brief Summary of PW1 Cross-Examination, during cross examination, PW1 admitted that she is currently residing in Pune with her husband and son, Anubhav Mishra. She confirmed that the defendant (her daughter-in-law) continues to reside at the suit Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Page no. 7 of 33 2025.04.19 17:01:58 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA property. She acknowledged that she has not filed any police complaint or complaint before any authority regarding the alleged pressure exerted by her son and daughter-in-law since 2015 to transfer the suit property. She also admitted that she has not filed any complaint regarding nuisance or disturbance by the defendant. She stated that the suit property is her self-acquired property and that her son and daughter-in-law have no legal rights over it. She admitted that she deleted her son Anubhav Mishra from the array of parties despite alleging that he continued to pressure her regarding the property. It was admitted that the defendant filed a DV case against her, her husband, and her son, and that an FIR (No. 586/2017 under Sections 323/342/498-A/506/509 IPC) was also registered. She denied allegations of domestic violence but acknowledged the existence of the case and orders restraining them from forcibly evicting the defendant.
16. PW1 admitted to filing an eviction petition dated 27.03.2018 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which was dismissed by the District Magistrate on 09.07.2018. She denied that the present suit is barred by res judicata or Section 27 of the said Act. She admitted that the defendant came to reside at the suit property post-marriage but denied that it is the defendant's matrimonial home. She also denied the defendant's legal right to stay in the property. She admitted to the existence of orders dated 03.11.2017 (Ex. PW1/D1), 20.02.2018 Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19 Page no. 8 of 33 17:02:05 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA (Ex. PW1/D2), and 09.04.2018 (Ex. PW1/D3), restraining any forcible dispossession of the defendant from the suit property without due process of law.
17. PW1 denied any collusion with her son Anubhav Mishra to dispossess the defendant; despite admitting she resides with him in Pune. She admitted that no written notice was given to the defendant. She consistently denied claims that the present suit is false or filed in collusion to forcibly dispossess the defendant. PW1 cross-examination was concluded on 20.12.2021.
18. Thereafter, Sh. WG Cdr. A K Misra who is plaintiff no. 2 was examined himself as PW2 and tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex. PW2/A. He has also placed reliance upon the documents which are already relied by plaintiff no. 1 including the following documents i.e.
(i) Ex. PW2/B (OSR) i.e. Copy of Aadhar card; and
(iii) Ex. PW2/C i.e. Copy of ex-serviceman ID card.
19. PW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant. Brief Summary of Cross-Examination of PW2 (Husband of PW1), During cross examination, it is stated that he has been residing in Pune with his wife and son Anubhav Mishra since April 2019. He admitted that his son, initially a party to the suit, was later deleted from the array of parties, though he does not recall whether this occurred before service of summons. He admitted that no complaints were filed with the police or any authority regarding the Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19 Page no. 9 of 33 17:02:12 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA alleged pressure from either his son or daughter-in-law to transfer the suit property since 2015, stating it was treated as a "personal matter".
20. PW2 denied allegations that he, in collusion with his son, filed the present suit to dispossess the defendant. He also denied that the amended plaint contains the same allegations as the original, showing collusion. He admitted that the defendant filed a DV case under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act against him, his wife, and his son. He also acknowledged that an FIR was registered against them under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, but denied all allegations of harassment or dowry demands. He admitted the order dated 03.11.2017 was not against him or his wife.
21. PW2 stated that he submitted complaints regarding threats from the defendant to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Defence Minister, Human Rights Commission, and SHO, PS Saket. However, he admitted these applications were not filed with the plaint or made part of the record. He admitted that he has not served any written notice or document asking the defendant to vacate the property. He admitted that the defendant began living at the suit property after her marriage to his son. He also admitted to the existence of orders dated 20.02.2018 and 09.04.2018 (Ex. PW1/D2 & Ex. PW1/D3), which restrain him and his wife from forcibly evicting the defendant without due process of law.
22. PW2 denied that the suit property is the matrimonial Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19 Page no. 10 of 33 17:02:19 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA home of the defendant or that she has any legal right to reside there. He admitted to filing an eviction petition dated 27.03.2018 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which was dismissed on 09.07.2018. He denied that this remedy bars him from pursuing the present civil suit or that the suit is hit by res judicata or is a counter-blast to the DV complaint and FIR. PW2 cross-examination was concluded on 11.08.2023.
23. Thereafter, Sh. Rohit Vats from the office of SRVII INA, New Delhi was examined as PW3. He has brought the conveyance deed bearing registration no. 199 Additional Book no. I, Volume 3572 on page no. 39 to 41 registered on 06.01.2010 as Ex. PW1/C.
24. During cross-examination, it stated that he is working as Data Entry Operator from the last one year and he does not know anything about the case. PW3 cross-examination was concluded on 22.09.2023. Thereafter, vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs, plaintiff evidence was closed on 22.11.2023 and matter was fixed for defendant evidence.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE:-
25. On the other hand, in support of her case, defendant was examined herself as DW1 who tendered her affidavit of evidence as Ex. DW1/A and has relied upon documents which are already exhibited as Ex. PW1/D1 i.e. copy of order dated 03.11.2017 of Ld. MM, Mahila Court, Saket, Ex. PW1/D2 i.e. copy Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19 Page no. 11 of 33 17:02:26 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA of order dated 20.02.2018 and Ex. PW1/D3 i.e copy of order dated 09.04.2018. She has also relied upon following documents i.e.
(i) Ex. DW1/1 (OSR) i.e. Copy of DD no. 46B/ complaint dated 12.10.2017;
(ii) Mark A (exhibited as Ex. DW1/2 in the affidavit) i.e. Copy to copy of MLC bearing no. 9222/2017;
(iii) Ex. DW1/3 i.e. Copy of order dated 23.11.2017 of Ld. ACMM;
(iv) Ex. DW1/4 i.e. Copy of FIR no. 0586/2017 u/s 323/ 342/498A/506/509 IPC PS Saket;
(v) Ex. DW1/5 i.e. Copy of order dated 09.01.2018 of Ld. MM-02 Mahila Court;
(vi) Mark B (exhibited as Ex. DW1/6 in the affidavit) i.e. Copy of questionnaire;
(vii) Mark C (exhibited as Ex. DW1/7 in the affidavit) i.e. Copy of application dated 03.04.2018;
(viii) Ex. DW1/8 (OSR) i.e. Copy of complaint dated 19.02.2018;
(ix) Ex. DW1/9 (OSR) i.e. Copy of complaint dated 24.02.2018;
(x) Mark D (exhibited as Ex. DW1/10 in the affidavit) i.e. Copy of complaint dated 05.03.2018;
(xi) Ex. DW1/11 (OSR) i.e. Copy of complaint dated 06.03.2018;
(xii) Mark E (exhibited as Ex. DW1/12 in the affidavit) i.e. Copy of complaint dated 13.03.2018;
(xiii) Ex. DW1/13 (colly) i.e. Copy of eviction petition dated Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Page no. 12 of 33 2025.04.19 17:02:33 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA 27.03.2018 and order of Ld. DM dated 09.07.2018 (admitted during cross-examination dated 20.12.2021); and
(xiv) Mark A/DW1 (colly) i.e. Copies of cheques no. 148224 and 173426.
26. DW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs. Brief Summary of Cross-Examination of DW1, during cross examination, DW1 stated she is a teacher at a play school, earning a monthly salary of ₹12,000. Apart from the complaint marked as Ex. DW1/1, she admitted to not filing any other police complaints against the plaintiffs prior to the present suit. She admitted that she has not placed any documentary proof to show that the suit property was listed on magicbricks.com, though she claims several potential buyers visited the property around November-December 2017. She could not recall their names.
27. DW1 acknowledged that no judicial order exists requiring the plaintiffs (her in-laws) to provide her or her children with maintenance. She admitted that the plaintiffs have two sons -- her husband Sh. Anubhav Misra and Sh. Abhinav Misra, who resides in the U.S.A. She also confirmed that the plaintiffs are not residing at the suit property (H-35/B, Saket). She admitted that in Petition No. 16/2018 filed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, no evidence was led by either side, though an inquiry was conducted by the Patwari.
28. DW1 could not recall the exact date when she filed her Digitally signed ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19 Page no. 13 of 33 17:02:40 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA domestic violence complaint and was uncertain whether the summons in that case was issued after the filing of the present civil suit. She denied that she ceased to be a licensee of the plaintiffs after her husband moved out of the property. She also denied that the plaintiffs have not suppressed any material facts or that the present suit is not barred by res judicata or Section 27 of the Senior Citizens Act. DW1 cross-examination was concluded on 22.01.2024.
29. Further, Sh. Raj Singh was a summoned witness from Junior Medical Record Officer, AIIMS was examined as DW2. He has brought the original MLC bearing no. 9222/2017 dated 12.10.2017 of patient Nidhi w/o Anubhav r/o H-35B, Block H, Saket, New Delhi. It is stated that the MLC was prepared by Dr. Shahadat Hussain, Jr. Resident. It is stated that he has left the hospital on 20.01.2018. It is stated that he was working in the hospital w.e.f. 01.07.2016 to 19.01.2018. It is stated that he worked with Dr. Shahadat Hussain and he knows the signatures of Dr. Shahadat Hussain and he can identify the same. It is stated that the signatures in the MLC bearing no. 9222/2017 at point A is of Dr. Shahadat Hussain as Mark A on 16.12.2023 is now Ex. DW2/A (OSR).
30. DW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs. During cross-examination, it is stated that he does not work in the Trauma Centre, AIIMS. It is denied that he has brought a forged and fabricated document Ex. DW2/A (OSR) upon the Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Page no. 14 of 33 2025.04.19 17:02:47 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA asking of the defendant. DW2 cross-examination was concluded on 22.02.2024. Thereafter, defendant evidence was closed on 08.05.2024 and matter was fixed for final arguments. FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
31. Final arguments advanced by both parties were heard on 04.02.2025. During arguments, Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs has relied upon certain judgment in support of his contentions i.e. Prem Kishore & Ors. Vs. Brahim Prakash & Ors. 2023 Livelaw (SC) 266 and Anmol & Anr. Vs. Sushila WP (C) 13825/2022. During arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied upon certain judgment in support of his contentions i.e. (i) Sneha Ahuja Vs. Satish Chander Ahuja RFA 222/2019 and (ii) Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja AIR Online 2020 SC 784.
32. The file has been carefully and minutely perused and my issue-wise findings with reasons thereof are as under: -
ISSUE NO.1 Whether the defendant is residing in the second bedroom of the suit property as the licensee of plaintiff? OPP
33. The primary issue for consideration before this Court is whether the defendant resided in the suit property merely as a licensee, as claimed by the plaintiffs, or whether she is entitled to reside therein by virtue of the suit property being her "shared household" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "DV Act").
Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2025.04.19 Page no. 15 of 33 17:02:55 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
34. The burden of proof to establish that the defendant resided in the suit premises merely as a licensee lies with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have asserted that the defendant began residing in the suit property following her marriage to their son, Mr. Anubhav Misra, and continued to reside there solely under a license granted by them. In support of this contention, they rely upon the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, who have both deposed that the defendant's occupation of the suit premises was by way of permission. Additionally, the plaintiffs have claimed exclusive ownership over the suit property and placed on record Ex. PW1/C for the ownership proof. He further stated that the defendant, having no independent legal or proprietary right, cannot continue to occupy the premises.
35. On the other hand, the defendant has categorically contended that the suit property is her "shared household" and constitutes her matrimonial home. She asserts that she has the legal right to reside in the suit property on account of her marital relationship with the plaintiffs' son. Furthermore, she contends that she is protected by interim orders passed in proceedings under the DV Act and cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law.
36. Before examining the merits of the respective claims, it is important to note that this Court derives jurisdiction to adjudicate Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19 17:03:07 +0530 Page no. 16 of 33 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA the defendant's right of residence by virtue of Section 26(1) of the DV Act, which reads:
"Any relief available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court, family court or a criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act."
37. In light of the above provision, the defendant, being an aggrieved person, is entitled to seek relief under Section 19 of the DV Act in this civil suit instituted by the plaintiffs. The said section provides for the right of residence and enables the Court to grant protection against unlawful dispossession.
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020 SCC OnLine SC 841) laid down the conditions under which a woman can claim the right of residence in a shared household under Sections 17 and 19 of the DV Act. The following three conditions must be satisfied:
1. That the aggrieved person was living in a domestic relationship with the respondent and not merely as a licensee;
2. That the aggrieved person is a victim of domestic violence;
3. That the domestic violence was committed by the respondent against whom the relief is claimed.Digitally signed by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2025.04.19 17:03:15 Page no. 17 of 33 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
39. To examine whether the suit property qualifies as a "shared household," reference must be made to Section 2(f) and Section 2(s) of the DV Act, which define "domestic relationship"
and "shared household" respectively.
40. It is an admitted fact that the defendant is the legally wedded wife of the plaintiffs' son and began residing in the suit property upon her marriage. The plaintiffs themselves have acknowledged that she was occupying one of the bedrooms in the suit property and availing the common facilities therein. These facts satisfy the first requirement--that the defendant was residing in the property in a domestic relationship.
41. Further, it is immaterial whether the defendant has any ownership interest in the suit property. As clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a "shared household" can be one where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship, irrespective of ownership or tenancy rights, and even if the property belongs solely to the joint family of the respondent.
42. Hence, applying the interpretation laid down in Satish Chander Ahuja (supra), this Court finds that the suit property qualifies as a shared household for the purpose of determining the defendant's right of residence.
43. The second aspect to be examined is whether the defendant has been subjected to domestic violence by the plaintiffs and their son. The defendant has placed on record several Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2025.04.19 Page no. 18 of 33 17:03:22 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA documents to support her claims, including Ex. DW1/1: Copy of DD No. 46B/Complaint dated 12.10.2017, Ex. DW2/A: Copy of MLC bearing No. 9222/2017, Ex. DW1/4 to Ex. DW1/12: Orders, FIRs, medical records, and multiple complaints filed before authorities.
44. Although during her cross-examination the defendant admitted that apart from Ex. DW1/1, she did not file additional complaints before filing the present suit, the plaintiffs themselves admitted during their cross-examination that they too had never filed any complaint regarding alleged pressure from their son and daughter-in-law to transfer the suit property.
45. Upon a cumulative reading of the complaint, the FIR (Ex. DW1/4), and the orders of the Domestic Violence Court (Ex. DW1/5 and others), along with the corroborative medical records, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is sufficient evidence to establish instances of domestic violence. Accordingly, the defendant has successfully discharged the burden of proof with respect to the second and third conditions - namely, that she qualifies as an "aggrieved person" under the Domestic Violence Act and that acts of domestic violence were perpetrated against her by the plaintiffs and their son.
46. Having carefully considered the pleadings, the evidence on record, and the legal principles enunciated in Satish Chander Ahuja (supra), this Court finds that the defendant has successfully Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19 Page no. 19 of 33 17:03:29 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA established that she was residing in the suit property in a domestic relationship with the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the suit property qualifies as a "shared household" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The defendant has also adduced sufficient evidence to prove that she was subjected to acts of domestic violence by the plaintiffs and their son. Thus, she has fulfilled all the legal requirements to assert and claim her right of residence under the said Act.
47. Therefore, the plaintiffs' contention that the defendant was residing in the suit property merely as a licensee is found to be untenable. The concept of a license implies a revocable permission to occupy the premises. However, in the context of matrimonial disputes, the rights of the wife flow from matrimonial law and the DV Act, not from the law of licenses.
48. Accordingly, the issue is decided against the plaintiffs. The defendant, having fulfilled all the conditions set forth under the law, is entitled to continue residing in the suit property as a matter of right, and not as a mere licensee.
ISSUE NO.2 Whether defendant has illegally refused to vacate the above said portion despite the termination of license by plaintiff? OPP
49. This issue is directly dependent upon the plaintiffs' ability to establish that the defendant was residing in the suit property merely as a licensee. As discussed in the findings on Issue Digitally signed ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19 Page no. 20 of 33 17:03:36 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA No. 1, the Court has held that the defendant's occupation cannot be termed as that of a licensee, but is instead protected under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as she has a right of residence in the shared household.
50. Even assuming, arguendo, that the defendant was residing under a license, the plaintiffs would still be required to establish that the said license was validly terminated. It is a well- settled principle of law that termination of a license must be preceded by a reasonable notice. In the present case, the plaintiffs have admitted that no written notice was ever served upon the defendant for termination of the alleged license.
51. Further, in cases involving matrimonial disputes and allegations of domestic violence, courts are required to adopt a stricter standard while examining claims related to the right of residence. In the absence of any formal notice or legally valid termination, coupled with the existence of rights accruing under matrimonial and protective statutes, this Court finds no merit in the plaintiffs' claim that the defendant has refused to vacate the premises illegally. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO.3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction, as sought for? OPP & Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19 Page no. 21 of 33 17:03:43 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA ISSUE NO.4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction, as sought for? OPP
52. Since both issues are interrelated, they are being considered together for the sake of brevity. The burden to prove these issues is upon plaintiffs. The reliefs sought by the plaintiffs are premised on the assertion that the defendant is a mere licensee and is occupying the property without any legal right. However, as held under Issue No. 1, the defendant has a legally protected right of residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the property qualifies as her shared household.
53. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020 SCC OnLine SC 841) has clarified that the wife's right to reside in her matrimonial home is not dependent on ownership and cannot be defeated merely by describing her as a licensee.
54. Granting a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the premises would effectively nullify her statutory right of residence and contravene the protective spirit of the DV Act. Likewise, granting a permanent injunction restraining her from asserting such rights would be equally unjustified.
55. Accordingly, as the plaintiffs have failed to establish the alleged license or any illegality in the defendant's continued occupation, they are not entitled to either mandatory or permanent Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Page no. 22 of 33 2025.04.19 17:03:50 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA injunction. Accordingly, these issues are decided against the plaintiffs.ISSUE NO. 5
Whether the present suit is barred by the principle of res-judicata u/S 11 CPC? OPD & ISSUE NO. 6 Whether the present suit is barred u/S 27 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007? OPD
56. Since both issues are interrelated, they are being considered together for the sake of brevity. The burden to prove these issues is upon defendant. The defendant contends that the plaintiffs had previously filed an eviction petition under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and that the dismissal of the same constitutes res judicata in the present proceedings. It is also argued that the present suit is barred under Section 27 of the Senior Citizens Act.
57. The principle of res judicata, as enshrined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prevents the re-litigation of issues that have been directly and substantially decided in a former suit between the same parties. To examine the plea of res judicata, it is necessary to apply the well-settled conditions laid down in Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, AIR 1966 SC 1332 wherein it has been held that:-
"1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV Page no. 23 of 33 SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19 17:03:56 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually or constructively in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim.
3. Such parties must have been litigating under the same title in the former suit.
4. The Court which decided the former suit must be a court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue is subsequently raised.
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the former suit."
58. In the present case, it is noted that the plaintiffs had previously initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, before the District Magistrate, asserting their status as senior citizens. In contrast, the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs in their capacity as the owners and licensors of the suit property.
59. It is significant to note that the order dated 09.07.2018 Ex. DW1/13, passed in the earlier proceedings (Case No. 16/18), specifically records that, according to the SDM Inquiry Report, the allegations of harassment made against the respondent/defendant could not be substantiated. The scope of the proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act was confined solely to examining the alleged harassment of the plaintiffs. Digitally signed ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19 17:04:02 +0530 Page no. 24 of 33 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
60. On the other hand, the present suit is based on the plaintiffs' assertion of ownership and their alleged entitlement to possession of the suit property, which they claim to be their self- acquired property purchased from their own funds. During cross- examination, the defendant admitted that no evidence was led by either party in the prior proceedings, and that the inquiry conducted therein was limited to a fact-finding exercise by the Patwari.
61. As per the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's observations in Anmol & Anr. v. Sushila, W.P.(C) 13825/2022, forums under the Senior Citizens Act are not competent to adjudicate civil property rights.
62. The reliefs sought in the present suit do not stem from any allegation of harassment but are instead grounded in the plaintiffs' claimed proprietary rights. Therefore, the subject matter and the issues directly and substantially in question in the two proceedings are distinct. Furthermore, as no evidence was recorded and no adjudication took place upon the merits of the case in the earlier proceedings, it cannot be said that the matter was conclusively decided after the application of judicial mind.
63. Consequently, the essential conditions for the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata are not satisfied, and the present suit cannot be held to be barred under the said principle.
Digitally signed by ANUBHAVANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19 Page no. 25 of 33 17:04:11 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
64. Moving further, with regard to the objection raised under Section 27 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the said provision reads as follows:
Section 27 - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts Barred: "No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter to which any provision of this Act applies and no injunction shall be granted by any Civil Court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done by or under this Act."
65. A plain reading of this provision makes it clear that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred only in respect of matters that are specifically covered under the provisions of the said Act. In the present case, the plaintiffs are not seeking any relief under the Senior Citizens Act. Instead, they are seeking possession of the suit property through a decree of mandatory injunction, asserting their independent legal right as owners of the self-acquired property.
66. It is also well settled that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain and try all suits of a civil nature, unless their cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reinforces this principle by providing that Civil Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all civil suits except those of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
67. In the present matter, the plaintiffs have sought relief in the nature of mandatory and permanent injunctions, arising from the alleged infringement of their proprietary rights. The cause of action Digitally signed ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19 Page no. 26 of 33 17:04:20 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA in the present suit is not derived from, nor does it depend upon, any provision of the Senior Citizens Act. The reliefs claimed are based purely on civil rights emanating from ownership and possession of immovable property.
68. Accordingly, the bar under Section 27 of the Senior Citizens Act does not apply to the present proceedings. The suit is, therefore, held to be maintainable before this Court. Therefore, these issues are decided against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 7Whether the present suit has been filed in collusion with the son of plaintiff namely Anubhav Mishra who was earlier the defendant no. 1 in the suit? OPD & ISSUE NO. 8 Whether the plaintiff has approached the court without clean hands and by suppressing and misrepresenting material facts before the court? OPD
69. These issues are considered together due to their overlapping nature. The burden to prove these issues is upon defendant. The defendant has alleged that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in collusion with their son, Mr. Anubhav Mishra, to evict her from her matrimonial home. She highlights the removal of Mr. Mishra as a party from the suit and the plaintiffs' current cohabitation with him in Pune, despite alleging harassment, Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Page no. 27 of 33 2025.04.19 17:04:26 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA as indicative of collusion.
70. During cross-examination, the plaintiffs admitted that they are currently residing with their son, which casts serious doubt on their claims of discord. Additionally, their failure to file police complaints against their son, despite alleging harassment, raises further questions about the credibility of their narrative.
71. The defendant has also brought to the Court's notice that the plaintiffs failed to disclose the pendency of the earlier eviction petition and ongoing DV proceedings in their pleadings. This suppression of material facts undermines the principle of "uberrimae fidei" (utmost good faith), which governs parties approaching a court of equity.
72. In view of the above, it is evident that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and that the present suit appears to be filed in collusion with their son to unlawfully dispossess the defendant from the matrimonial home. Therefore, these issues are decided in favour of defendant.
ISSUE NO. 9Relief.
73. In light of the foregoing discussion and upon appreciation of the evidence and legal principles involved, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case. Conversely, the defendant has successfully established her right of residence in the suit property under the provisions of the Protection Digitally signed ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19 Page no. 28 of 33 17:04:33 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
74. Although, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit in the form of a suit for mandatory injunction, asserting their status as licensors. However, they have not sought the relief of recovery of possession in their capacity as owners, possibly with the intention to avoid the payment of appropriate court fees. Nevertheless, for the effective adjudication of the present dispute and to do complete justice between the parties, this Court proceeds to decide the issue of possession as well.
75. This Court acknowledges the vulnerabilities of plaintiffs and their right to peaceful enjoyment of their property. Simultaneously, this court also recognize the paramount importance of the DV Act in protecting women from domestic violence. The right to reside in a shared household is a fundamental aspect of this protection.
76. However, the quest for justice and the need for balancing the rights of parties does not end here. It has always been the endeavour of courts in such cases of dispute between the father- in-law and the daughter-in-law, to balance the rights of both the parties. Needless to say, that the courts have vehemently stressed on the fact that workable solutions need to be found in such cases.
77. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Satish Ahuja (supra) has observed that:-
"Before we close our discussion on Section 2(s), we need to observe that the right to Digitally signed ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV SHARMA Page no. 29 of 33 SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19 17:04:47 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA residence under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when the daughter-in- law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law. While granting relief both in application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 or in any civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties."
78. At this juncture it is also pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vinay Varma v. Kanika Pasricha & Another 2019 SCC Online Del 11530, wherein the issue was regarding the interpretation and balance between The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in this case laid down guidelines for striking a balance between the two Acts, while observing as follows "However, later decisions of various High Courts have, while giving divergent opinions on the concept of `shared household‟, followed one uniform pattern in order to protect the daughter in-law and to provide for a dignified roof/shelter for her. The question then arises as to whether the obligation of providing the shelter or roof is upon the in-laws or upon the husband of the daughter-in-law i.e., the son. Some broad guidelines as set out Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19 17:05:00 Page no. 30 of 33 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA below, can be followed by Courts in order to strike a balance between the PSC Act and the DV Act:
i. The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the sons/ daughters family.
ii. If the case involves eviction of a daughter in law, the court has to also ascertain whether the daughter-in-law was living as part of a joint family.
iii. If the relationship is acrimonious, then the parent ought to be permitted to seek eviction of the son/daughter-in-law or daughter/son in-law from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife would continue in terms of the principles under the DV Act.
iv. If the relationship between the parents and the son are peaceful or if the parent is seen colluding with their son, then, an obligation to maintain and to provide for the shelter for the daughter-in-law would remain both upon the in-laws and the husband especially if they were living as part of a joint family. In such a situation, while parents would be entitled to seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from their property, an alternative reasonable accommodation would have to be provided to her.Digitally signed by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2025.04.19 17:05:30 +0530 Page no. 31 of 33 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA v. In case the son or his family is ill treating the parents then the parents would be entitled to seek unconditional eviction from their property so that they can live a peaceful life and also put the property to use for their generating income and for their own expenses for daily living. vi. If the son has abandoned both the parents and his own wife/children, then if the son's family was living as part of a joint family prior to the breakdown of relationships, the parents would be entitled to seek possession from their daughter-in-law, however, for a reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the daughter in law during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband."
79. In the present case, a cumulative reading of the evidence reveals a prima facie element of collusion between the plaintiffs and their son, aimed at securing the eviction of the defendant from the suit property. It stands established that the suit property constitutes a shared household, and the defendant has successfully demonstrated her legal right to reside therein under the Domestic Violence Act. It is also not disputed that the plaintiffs are currently residing with their son.
80. In view of the foregoing, and keeping in mind the necessity of balancing the rights and interests of both parties, this Court, in line with the principles laid down in Vinay Varma v.
Digitally signed by ANUBHAVANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19 Page no. 32 of 33 17:05:37 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA Kanika Pasricha & Anr. (supra), deems it appropriate to direct the following directions:
(i) The plaintiffs and their son, Mr. Anubhav Misra, shall jointly and severally arrange for alternative accommodation for the defendant, consisting of at least two rooms, a kitchen, and a bathroom, situated in the same locality as the suit property.
(ii) The rent for such accommodation shall jointly and severally be borne by the plaintiffs and their son and shall be deposited directly into the bank account of the defendant on or before the 10th day of each calendar month.
(iii) Upon the commencement of the rent payments as specified above, the defendant shall vacate the suit property within a period of three months from the date of the first such deposit.
81. There shall be no order as to costs.
82. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly, subject to the payment of appropriate court fees by the plaintiffs in respect of the relief of recovery of possession of the suit property.
83. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedPronounced in open court: by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
Dated: 19.04.2025 2025.04.19
17:05:43 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01(South)Saket/New Delhi/19.04.2025 Note: -This judgment contains thirty three pages and all the pages Digitally signed have been checked and signed by me. ANUBHAV SHARMA by ANUBHAV SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19 17:05:48 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01(South)Saket/New Delhi/19.04.2025 Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV Page no. 33 of 33 SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19 17:05:54 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi