Delhi District Court
Santosh vs . Sangeeta on 27 September, 2016
Santosh Vs. Sangeeta
CA No. 159/15
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR:
SPECIAL JUDGE (THE COMPANIES ACT)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE03 : DWARKA COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:
Criminal Appeal No. 159/15
Smt. Santosh
W/o Shri Ram Kumar
R/o House No. RZ14/15,
Raghubir Block, Prem Nagar,
Najafgarh, New Dehli110043.
..... Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Sangeeta
W/o Shri Satbir
D/o Late Tara Chand
R/o Village Jharoda,
Near Chaupal, New Delhi110072.
.... Respondent
Date of Filing of Appeal : 14.03.2016
Date of Advancing Arguments : 19.09.2016
Date of Judgement
:
27.09.2016
:J U D G E M E N T :
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the present appeal filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the D.V. Act) vide Page no. 1/10 27.09.2016 Santosh Vs. Sangeeta CA No. 159/15 which the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 27.02.2016 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi by way of which application moved by the complainant (respondent herein), under Section 23 r/w Section 18 & 19 of the D.V. Act was allowed.
2. Appellant Santosh is the motherinlaw of respondent Sangeeta.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, as per the case before the Ld.Trial Court, are that respondent Sangeeta (complainant before the Ld. Trial Court) after her marriage, solemnized on 28.01.2011, came to her matrimonial house i.e. RZ 14/15, Raghubir Block, Prem Nagar, Najafgarh where she was residing with her husband in one room using kitchen and store room and sharing the common toiletbathroom. It was alleged that on 24.03.2015 when respondent Sangeeta returned home, after the Court hearing, she, her husband and mother were badly beaten by the appellant and other family members (i.e. respondent no. 1 to 4 before the Ld. Trial Court) and they also threatened her and her husband that they will kill her if they try to enter the house and a PCR call was made but police did not register the FIR but made a kalandra against both the parties.
Page no. 2/10 27.09.2016 Santosh Vs. Sangeeta CA No. 159/15
During arguments before the Ld. Trial Court, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Santosh admitted that kalandra was registered but he denied the allegations that appellant alongwith other family members assaulted the respondent Sangeeta, her husband and her mother. Ld. Counsel further argued that appellant Santosh is the owner of abovementioned property and she was residing in Saudi Arabia from the last more than three years and she has nothing to do with respondent Sangeeta. Relying upon the judgement S.R. Batra & Anr. Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169, Ld. Counsel further argued that respondent Sangeeta does not have any right to reside in the property of her motherinlaw as the same cannot be termed as shared household. Apart from this Ld. Counsel for appellant Santosh also contended that appellant had filed a suit for eviction, permanent and mandatory injunction against her sons i.e. including husband of the respondent Sangeeta and withdrew the same on 15.01.2016 as both her sons had vacated the suit property i.e. RZ14/15, Prem Nagar, Extn., Raghubir Block, Najafgarh.
After hearing submissions of both the parties, by way of impugned order Ld. Trial Court allowed the application moved by the complainant/respondent Sangeeta and allowed her to enter the matrimonial house.
Page no. 3/10 27.09.2016 Santosh Vs. Sangeeta CA No. 159/15
4. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant has assailed the same on the grounds that the order passed by Ld. Trial Court is against the law stating that aggrieved person/wife (respondent) does not have any residence right in the self acquired property of her motherinlaw (appellant) and, if the right to residence is to be passed, then it must be against the husband of the aggrieved person as husband is solely liable to provide shelter or accommodation to the aggrieved person. It is averred that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that appellant is the absolute owner and in possession of the property bearing no. RZ14/15, Prem Nagar Extn., Raghubir Block, Najafgarh, New Delhi which is her self acquired property and does not term as 'shared household' and the aggrieved person has no right to stay their against the will of its owner i.e. appellant as the appellant being the lawful owner and in possession of the property in question has every right, title or interest to enjoy the same in what manner she wants. It is further averred that Ld. Trial Court has erred in considering the fact that property in question is the self acquired property of the appellant and she used to go abroad on few occasions and she is not the permanent resident of Saudi Arabia. It is further averred that Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the judgment S.R. Batra & Anr. (Supra) wherein it is held as under: "...........wherever husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in the dozens of places Page no. 4/10 27.09.2016 Santosh Vs. Sangeeta CA No. 159/15 e.g. with the husband's father, husband's paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc., if the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents is accepted, all these houses of the husband's relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist in living in the all these houses of her husband's relatives merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past, such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd."
It is averred that in view of above judgment, any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted. It is further averred that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that appellant has disowned/debarred her both the sons from all her movable and immovable properties due to their adamant and quarrelsome behaviour and in this connection she had filed a suit for eviction which was withdrawn by her on 15.01.2016 as both her sons had already vacated the suit property.
With all the abovesaid averments, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court be set aside.
5. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the entire record including TCR.
6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued on the lines of Page no. 5/10 27.09.2016 Santosh Vs. Sangeeta CA No. 159/15 contents of appeal and submits that this appeal is confined only to challenge the directions passed by Ld. Trial Court regarding reentry of her daughterinlaw/respondent/complainant in her house. He has further submitted that appellant has no grievance with second part of the direction regarding physical harm and injury.
7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondent has submitted that Ld. Trial Court has committed no illegality by passing the impugned order. He has further submitted that respondent is entitled to have access in the House no. RZ14/15, Prem Nagar Extn., Raghuvir Block, Najafgarh as same is her matrimonial home. In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel for respondent has relied upon the judgements Varsha Kapoor Vs. Union of India & Ors. 170(2010) DLT 166 (DB) and Pritiben Jiteshbhai Upadhyay Vs. Jiteshbhai Virendrabhai Upadhyay & Ors. 2012 CRI. L.J. 1187.
8.
9. Ld. Trial Court has returned its finding in impugned order as under: "First of all, the facts of the present case are distinct from the facts of the case of S.R. Batra (Supra) as the the alleged owner of the property i.e. respondent no.1 is herself not staying there from few years which is stated by the respondents themselves in their WS that motherinlaw/respondent no.1 is staying in Saudi Arabia for last 3 years with her husband. In the present case, complainant came to the above house after her marriage and currently the complainant Page no. 6/10 27.09.2016 Santosh Vs. Sangeeta CA No. 159/15 and respondents 3 and 4 are staying in their matrimonial house. So, the facts of S.R. Batra does not squarely cover the present case. Further, it is an admitted fact that at the time of filing of present petition, complainant was residing at RZ14/15, Prem Nagar Extn., Raghubir Block, Najafgarh and she also moved an application for directing the respondents to restore the electricity. On 28.04.2015, husband of the complainant had stated before the court that the respondents gave beatings to the complainant when she reached home after the last court hearing but neither of the parties apprised the court regarding the leaving of matrimonial home by the complainant. In between, on 10.08.2015, complainant moved an application for placing on record few photographs alleging that she was beaten by the respondents on 24.03.2015 and was thrown out of matrimonial house. So, it is prima facie made out that complainant was residing in her matrimonial house and she left it because of the conduct and harassment by the respondents. So far as the withdrawal of the civil suit of eviction by the respondent no.1 is concerned, the perusal of order sheet dated 23.11.2015 and 15.01.2016 of the Court of Sh. Vishal Gogne, Ld. SCJ, Dwarka Courts reveals that the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of the complainant to withdraw the same and there is no direction given by the court to the defendants in the abovementioned orders to vacate the suit property. In view of aforementioned discussion, application stands allowed and the complainant is allowed to enter the matrimonial house. In case of any resistance, complainant is at liberty to approach the local police who shall ensure that the complainant Sangeeta is put inside her matrimonial house.
Page no. 7/10 27.09.2016 Santosh Vs. Sangeeta CA No. 159/15
Respondents are directed not to cause any physical harm or injury to the complainant from the date of this order till final disposal of this case."
10. On perusal of trial court record and record of the present petition I find that respondent has filed her petition under Section 12 of the D.V. Act against her motherinlaw, fatherinlaw, brothers inlaw and sistersinlaw. She has no grievance from her husband. Her husband is not a party in any complaint filed by complainant before any forum. Appellant has disowned husband of complainant as well as her other son. Appellant previously instituted eviction suit against her sons including husband of respondent/ complainant. As such I find that there is property dispute between appellant and husband of respondent.
11. In Neetu Mittal Vs. Kanta Mittal & Ors., 152(2008) Delhi Law Times 691, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has stated as under:
"Once a person gains majority, he becomes independent and parents have no liability to maintain him. It is different thing that out of love and affection, the parents may continue to support him even when he becomes financially independent or continue to help him even after his marriage. This help and support of parents to the son is available only out of their love and affection and out of mutual trust and understanding. There is no legal liability on the parents to continue to support a disobedient son or a son which becomes liability on Page no. 8/10 27.09.2016 Santosh Vs. Sangeeta CA No. 159/15 them or a son who disrespects or disregards them or becomes a source of nuisance for them or trouble for them. The parents can always forsake such a son and daughterinlaw and tell them to leave their house and lead their own life and let them live in peace. It is because of love, affection, mutual trust, respect and support that members of a joint family gain from each other that the parents keep supporting their sons and families of sons. In turn, the parents get equal support, love, affection and care. Where this mutual relationship of love, care, trust and support goes, the parents cannot be forced to keep a son or daughterinlaw with them nor there is any statutory provision which compels parents to suffer because of the acts of residence and his son or daughter in law. A woman has her rights of maintenance against her husband or sons/ daughters. She can assert her rights, if any, against the property of her husband, but she cannot thrust herself against the parents of her husband, nor can claim a right to live in the house of parents of her husband, against their consult and wishes."
12. Ld. Trial Court has observed in impugned order that the respondent left matrimonial house because of conduct and harassment of her inlaws. It may be taken as respondent was not thrown out from the matrimonial home. She left her matrimonial home on her own wish. During the course of arguments husband of respondent, who has been appearing before the Court with her wife/complainant, has stated that he is residing on rent with his friend in other locality. In my opinion a wife cannot be allowed to Page no. 9/10 27.09.2016 Santosh Vs. Sangeeta CA No. 159/15 claim maintenance including accommodation from her inlaws exonerating her husband. A wife is entitled to seek maintenance from her husband and she is not liable to be maintained by inlaws. In view of abovementioned judgment and the fact that respondent/ complainant has exonerated her husband from maintaining her including providing residence, I am of the view that impugned order is not sustainable. Judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for respondents are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the cases of these judgments wives had made complaints against husbands.
13. In view of above observations it is hold that respondent/complainant has prima facie no right to reenter in the house of her motherinlaw. Hence, impugned order qua entry of respondent/ complainant in House no. 14/15, Raghubir Block, Prem Nagar, Najafgarh is set aside.
14. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court on the 27th Day of September 2016 (Anil Kumar) Special Judge (The Companies Act) ASJ03 : Dwarka Courts Delhi/27.09.2016 Page no. 10/10 27.09.2016