Delhi District Court
Sh. Sunil & Anr. vs . Smt. Neha Nayyar & Ors. on 6 June, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA,
SCJ/RC(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.-94/2013
Sh. Sunil & Anr. Vs. Smt. Neha Nayyar & Ors.
Date of institution of the application : 03.04.2013
Date of reserving order : 01.06.2013
Date of pronouncement : 06.06.2013
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application u/o XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants.
2. The essential facts for disposal of the present application as per plaint are as that the plaintiffs are the residents of A-2/96, Ground Floor, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and they are in exclusive physical possession of the said property (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). The plaintiff no.1 is the owner of the suit property and neither of his son has any contribution in purchasing the suit property or its construction. The defendant no.1 is the daughter in law of the plaintiffs and the marriage between the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff's son Shri Anubhav was a love marriage and the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff's son were adamant in marrying with each other and the plaintiffs many a times advised and suggested their son to marry after the marriage of his elder sister but the defendant no.1 and the son of the plaintiffs were adamant. It is averred that on 19.02.2013, the defendant no.1 along with her family members i.e. defendants no.2 to 4 came to the residence of the plaintiffs and threatened that they will seek share in the suit property. Before the marriage, the plaintiff's son also requested the plaintiffs to become the witness in the marriage and assured S. No. 94/2013 Page..... 1/7 that after marriage he will live separately in a rented accommodation along with his wife i.e. the defendant no.1. On 02.04.2013, the plaintiffs visited the office of Registrar of Marriage, Rampura, New Delhi and after the conclusion of the marriage, the plaintiff's son and the defendants no.1 to 3 stated that they are coming to reside at the suit property and the defendants no.2 & 3 stated that they will do everything to get a substantial share in the suit property as well as in the business of the plaintiffs. It is averred that on 20.02.2013, the plaintiff's son has left the suit property. It is averred that due to the incident of 02.04.2013, there has been continuous nuisance because of the acts of the defendants no.1 to 3 and mental peace of the plaintiffs has been effected adversely. It is prayed by the plaintiffs in the application that the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property and from taking forcible possession till the final disposal of the present suit.
3. Defendants filed the written statement taking preliminary objections that the defendant no.1 got married with the son of the plaintiffs before the Registrar of Marriage, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi on 02.04.2013. The marriage was duly attended and witnessed by parents in laws of the defendant no.1 i.e. the plaintiffs. After the marriage, the plaintiffs, the husband of the defendant no.1 and sister in law of the defendant no.1 demanded from the defendant no.1 and her parents a sum of Rs.25 lacs as dowry. Defendant no.1 and her parents showed their inability to give such huge amount on which all of them got angry and stated that they will not allow the defendant no.1 to enter in the matrimonial home. The plaintiffs and the husband of the defendant no.1 are running a S. No. 94/2013 Page..... 2/7 business regarding trading of trousers and shirts at Pawar Complex, 16/693E, Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and they have three firms including Balaji Enterprises and current accounts of the firm are being maintained in Dena Bank and HDFC Bank etc. The total income of all the firms is more than Rs.3 lacs per month. The parents in law, husband and sister in law of the defendant no.1 are residing at the ground floor of A-2/96, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi which is the matrimonial home of the defendant no.1. The matrimonial home is the joint family property which was purchased from the joint family funds. The defendant no.1 and her husband i.e. the son of the plaintiffs are in relationship since December, 2010 but the husband of the defendant no.1 and her in laws were delaying the marriage on one pretext or another and even after the marriage they are not allowing the defendant no.1 to enter into the matrimonial home. The plaintiffs and their son played fraud with the defendant no.1. They are preventing the defendant no.1 from residing in her matrimonial home with her husband and the present suit has been filed in conspiracy to harass the defendant no.1. In reply on merits, it is averred that the husband of the defendant no.1 and her sister is law Ms. Divya Chawla are also in physical possession of the suit property. Similar averments are taken in reply on merits as taken in the preliminary objections and the allegations made in the plaint are denied.
4. Plaintiffs have filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendants and controverted the allegations made in the written statement and re-affirmed the facts as mentioned in the plaint.
S. No. 94/2013 Page..... 3/7
5. I have heard ld. counsels for both the parties and perused the record.
6. Ld. counsel for the plaintiffs vehemently contended that the suit property is self acquired property of the plaintiff no.1 and his son has no contribution in purchasing the property or raising the construction. The plaintiffs have placed on record the photocopy of sale deed which shows that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff no.1 from Smt. Gagan Preet Kaur Narula, Smt. Aarti Khosla and Smt. Seema Rani Chauhan for sale consideration. Sale deed is duly registered with the Sub Registrar Office. Sale deed was registered on 07.02.2007. At the time of purchasing of the property, the son of the plaintiffs was minor. Thus, it cannot be said that the suit property is a joint family property.
7. Ld. counsel for the defendants has vehemently contended that the suit property is the matrimonial home of the defendant no.1 and the plaintiffs cannot restrain the defendant no.1 from entering into the suit property. It is admitted fact that marriage between the son of the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 was solemnized on 02.04.2013 and the marriage was registered on 02.04.2013. The suit was filed on 03.04.2013. Thus, it is not the case that the defendant no.1 resided in the suit property. Thus, till date the defendant no.1 did not reside in the suit property. Now the question arises whether the suit property can be treated as matrimonial home of the defendant no.1. Ld. counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the judgment cited as 1 (2007) DMC 1 (SC). In this judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the meaning of term 'Shared Household'. In this judgment it is held that "House belonging to or taken on S. No. 94/2013 Page..... 4/7 rent by husband or house belonging to joint family of which husband is member, Suit property belong to the mother in law of the wife cannot be called Shared Household." It is also held that "husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places i.e. with her husband's father, husband's paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers and other relatives. Definition of shared household does not include household where person aggrieved lives or at any stage lived in domestic relationship." It is also held that "claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against husband and not against husband's in laws or other relatives." Ld. counsel for the plaintiffs has also placed reliance upon the judgment cited as AIR 2009 DELHI 72 wherein it is held that " Right of wife to claim residence in 'shared household', the daughter in law cannot claim right to live in house of parents of husband against their consult and wishes." It is also held that "Injunction restraining daughter in law from forcibly entering into house of parents of husband and disturbing peaceful possession, can be granted." It is also held that "the son can live in the house of parents as a matter of right only if the house is an ancestral house in which the son has a share and he can enforce the partition. Where the house is self acquired house of the parents, son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in only at the mercy of his parents up to the time the parents allow." It is also held that "merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden throughout the life and the parents can S. No. 94/2013 Page..... 5/7 always forsake such a son and daughter in law and tell them to leave their house and lead their own life and let them live in peace." Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court cited as 2007 (96) DRJ 221 wherein it is held that "Defendant no.1 cannot claim a right of residence in the suit property as the same is not a 'shared household' and owned by the plaintiff who is her mother in law and any claims for residence can only be made against her husband." Reliance was also placed on judgment cited as 2007 (96) DRJ 697. In this judgment, it is held that "Interim injunction sought by daughter in law against her husband and in laws seeking protection from eviction from matrimonial home, the wife can claim right of residence only against her husband and not against her in laws. Neither son nor his wife can claim any right to stay in the house. Interim injunction sought by wife, rejected." Reliance was also placed upon the judgment cited as 2010 (116) DRJ 295 wherein it is held that "In a house owned by parents of husband, a wife has no right of shared household and a shared household would only mean the house belongings to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. Property in question neither belongs to husband nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband is a member, it is the exclusive property of parents in law and property cannot be called a shared household." In view of the above said judgments, I am of the view that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and for balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs will suffer S. No. 94/2013 Page..... 6/7 irrecoverable loss, if the application is not allowed. Taking into consideration that the defendant no.1 has not entered into the suit property after the marriage and in view of the judgments discussed above, the application is allowed. The defendants are restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property. Defendants are also restrained from forcibly taking possession of the suit property from the plaintiffs. Nothing expressed above shall tantamount to expressions of my opinions on the merits of the case.
Announced in the open court (NARESH KR. MALHOTRA)
on 06.06.2013 SCJ/RC(WEST)/ DELHI
S. No. 94/2013 Page..... 7/7