Delhi District Court
Sandhya Devi vs Shikha Gola on 10 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, EAST DISTRICT:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 31/2023
Ms. Sandhya Devi
D/o Late Sh. N.C. Kar,
W/o Sh. Ravindra Kumar,
R/o E-64, Gali No. 3, Hardev Nagar,
Delhi-110084
..........Appellant
Vs.
Ms. Shikha Gola,
D/o Sh. Ram Babu Gola,
R/o D-207, Street No. 9, C.R. Road,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
Also At:
E-64, Gali No. 3, Hardev Nagar,
Delhi-11086
..........Respondent
Date of institution : 25.02.2023
Judgment reserved on : 10.03.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 10.03.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Originally this appeal was preferred by the appellant being aggrieved of the orders of Ld. Trial Court dated 22.02.2021, 01.10.2021 and 09.02.2023. However, later vide her statement dated 24.08.2024, she dropped her prayer for setting aside orders dated 22.02.2021 and 01.10.2021. Moreover, she confined her Digitally signed by SUBHASH SUBHASH KUMAR prayer for setting aside the order dated 09.02.2023, only to the KUMAR MISHRA MISHRA Date:
2025.03.10 16:37:43 Sandhya Devi Vs. Shikha Gola Page no.1 of 7 +0530 extent it restrained her from using the kitchen situated at the ground floor of premises bearing No. E 64, Gali No.3, Hardev Nagar, Delhi-110084.
2. Necessary facts, shorn of unnecessary details, for deciding the instant appeal are that vide its order dated 22.02.2021, Ld. Trial Court had granted an ex-parte order restraining the respondents before it (appellant was one of the respondents before Ld. Trial Court) from obstructing the ingress and egress of the respondent in this appeal (hereinafter referred to as 'Complainant') from her matrimonial home and from dispossessing her therefrom.
Later, the complainant alleged that despite the aforesaid ex-parte order, the respondents refused to enter her in the matrimonial home and had also thrown her luggage. She also alleged that she was not able to use the kitchen and the Wi-Fi connection in her matrimonial home. Therefore, vide its order dated 01.10.2021, Ld. Trial Court again passed an interim order directing the respondents before it to provide a set of keys of the house to the complainant within five days mentioning that non compliance of the said direction would be a contumacious act. Respondents before Ld. trial court were also restrained from obstructing the access of the complainant to the kitchen, drinking water and to washroom. They were also directed to hand over a set of keys of the almirah kept in the bedroom of the complainant at the ground floor.
Digitally signed by SUBHASH SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA Thereafter, considering the counter allegations of the KUMAR MISHRA Date:
2025.03.10 16:37:50 Sandhya Devi Vs. Shikha Gola Page no.2 of 7 +0530 respondents before it, Ld. Trial Court appointed a Local Commissioner.
The Local Commissioner reported that though the respondents before the trial court reside on the first floor yet they have converted the kitchen situated on the first floor as a store room. It was also reported that the WiFi was not working when he had visited the premises.
Accordingly, vide its order dated 09.02.2023, Ld. Trial Court restrained the respondents before it from using the ground floor kitchen and directed that it would be exclusively used by the complainant. Further, the complainant was given liberty to get a WiFi connection installed on the ground floor, where she is residing and the respondents were restrained from creating any hurdles in the installation of the same and from meddling with the WiFi connection.
Now, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 09.02.2023, only to the extent it restrained her from using the kitchen situated at the ground floor.
3. Counsel for the appellant relying on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Smt. Tabassum & Ors. Vs. Amna Begum & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 5068/2022, decided on 07.01.2025 and in Pooja Mehta & Ors. Vs. NCT of Delhi & Ors, W.P. (C) No. 4643/2021, decided on 04.10.2024, argued that the house belongs to the appellant and the right of the complainant to Digitally signed by reside therein is not absolute especially when the complainant SUBHASH SUBHASH KUMAR KUMAR MISHRA MISHRA Date:
2025.03.10 16:37:57 Sandhya Devi Vs. Shikha Gola Page no.3 of 7 +0530 has continuously been ill treating the appellant.
He also argued that being owner of the house, the appellant has right to use her property in any manner and therefore she can not be restrained from using the kitchen at the ground floor.
He further argued that the kitchen at the first floor was never functional and since the construction of the house, it was used as store room.
He argued that the impugned order curtails the liberty of the appellant in her own house and she can not be compelled to use the kitchen at the first floor of the house.
4. Per contra, counsel for the complainant argued that despite the availability of the kitchen on the first floor the appellant and her family members use the kitchen on the ground floor because they want to disturb the peace of the complainant.
He also argued that the appellant uses the kitchen when the complainant cooks her food in order to create a scene.
5. I have heard the arguments and have gone through Trial Court record including the case laws relied on.
6. Facts of the judgments in Tabassum (supra) and Pooja Digitally Mehta (supra) are not applicable to this case. signed by SUBHASH SUBHASH KUMAR KUMAR MISHRA MISHRA Date:
2025.03.10 Sandhya Devi Vs. Shikha Gola Page no.4 of 7 16:38:04 +0530 In Tabassum (supra), the ill treatment, financial exploitation and mental harassment by the daughter-in-law/ petitioner had been proved by the mother-in-law before the District Magistrate. However, in the instant case, the trial is still pending and the parties are yet to lead the evidence and therefore, this fact has not been proved.
Further, in Pooja Mehta (supra), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the right of the mother in law, who was a senior citizen cannot be ignored, especially when there was a consistent pattern of ill treatment. Again, in the said case, the Divisional Commissioner after examination of evidence found that the daughter-in-law had created a hostile environment negatively effecting the quality of life of her mother-in-law. But in the instant case, parties are yet to lead the evidence.
7. Admittedly, there is a kitchen situated on the first floor of the house, where the appellant resides. Despite this, she uses the kitchen at the ground floor, where the complainant resides and allegedly she does not allow the complainant to use the said kitchen conveniently in order to disturb her peaceful possession.
8. As per Section 19(1)(c) of Protection of woman from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') the Magistrate may restrain the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the Digitally aggrieved person resides. signed by SUBHASH SUBHASH KUMAR KUMAR MISHRA MISHRA Date:
2025.03.10 Sandhya Devi Vs. Shikha Gola Page no.5 of 7 16:38:12 +0530
9. Further, in Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Anr, Crl. Appeal No.516/2016, also, decided on 18.04.2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it was held that a Magistrate is empowered to pass residence order under Section 19 of the Act and can restrain the respondent or his relatives from entering the portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides.
10. In the instant case, the complainant resides on the ground floor of the house and despite the availability of a kitchen on the first floor of the house, which has been converted into a store room, the appellant uses the kitchen at the ground floor. It has been alleged that the appellant has been doing so to in order to disturb the peaceful possession of the complainant.
11. Therefore, in exercise of its power under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act, Ld. Trial court has restrained the appellant from using the kitchen situated at the ground floor, as an interim measure, to protect the peaceful possession of the complainant.
12. Having discussed as above, it is held that the impugned order needs no interference. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Digitally signed by SUBHASH SUBHASH KUMAR MISHRA
13. Nothing said herein above, shall, however, be construed as KUMAR MISHRA Date:
2025.03.10 16:38:23 +0530 Sandhya Devi Vs. Shikha Gola Page no.6 of 7 any expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
14. TCR be sent back along with a copy of this order. File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Digitally signed by SUBHASH (Subhash Kumar Mishra) SUBHASH KUMAR KUMAR MISHRA Additional Sessions Judge-03, MISHRA Date:
2025.03.10 East, KKD Courts, Delhi 16:38:33 +0530 10.03.2025 Sandhya Devi Vs. Shikha Gola Page no.7 of 7