Delhi District Court
Cc No. 242/08 Deepa vs . Sh.Rajesh Kumar 1/19 on 10 January, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIYA MAHENDRA: Ld.MM (MAHILA COURTS-2)
ROOM NO: 315: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
CC No. 242/08
1.Smt. Deepa
W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar
D/o Sh. Om Prakash ....................... (AGGRIEVED PERSON/
COMPLAINANT)
2.Sakshi
Aged about 1 Years
D/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar ....................... (MINOR DAUGHTER)
Both R/o House No. E-111,
Budh Nagar, Indrapuri,
New Delhi-28
VERSUS
1. Sh. Rajesh Kumar
S/o Shri Pal ..................... (HUSBAND)
2. Shri Pal .................... (FATHER IN LAW)
3. Shankuntala .................... (MOTHER IN LAW)
All R/o H. No.E-111, Budh Nagar,
Indrapuri, Delhi
4. Manju .................... (SISTER IN LAW)
W/o Gulzar
5. Gulzar .................... (BROTHER IN LAW)
R/o F-12/4, Jogabai Extn.
Okhla-25. ..................... (RESPONDENTS)
PS: INDERPURI
APPLICATION U/s 12 OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE ACT, 2005
CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 1/19
2
JUDGMENT
1.By this judgment I shall dispose of the petition filed by the aggrieved person under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as DV Act) filed against respondents interalia seeking relief U/s 18/19/20/21 & 22 of DV Act.
2.The respondent no. 1 is husband, respondent no. 2 is the father-in- law and respondent no. 3 is the mother in law, respondent no. 4 is sister in law (nanad) and respondent no.5 is husband of sister in law of the aggrieved person/complainant. My Ld. Predecessor summoned all the five respondents.
3.The brief facts as stated by complainant in her petition are that complainant/aggrieved person was married to respondent no. 1 on 23.06.04 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies and it was an arranged marriage. One son and one daughter were born out of the wedlock. Just after the marriage all the respondents started subjecting the aggrieved person/complainant to cruelty. In view of the conduct of the respondents the aggrieved person/complainant filed a complaint with CAW Cell, PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi which culminated into filing of FIR No. 202/06 dated 15.04.06 against the respondents. During the hearing of bail application, compromise took place between the aggrieved person/complainant and the respondents and the respondents gave an undertaking to keep the aggrieved person/complainant in the matrimonial house with all dignity and respect. Pursuant to compromise the complainant also withdrew the CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 2/19 3 petition filed by her U/s 125 Cr. P.C on 31.07.06. However all the assurances proved to be only futile promises. The respondents again started harassing and torturing the complainant specially after she gave birth to the daughter. They started threatening the complainant to implicate her in a false case. The complainant was compelled to give complaints to SHO, Inderpuri on 20.12.07 and 09.09.08 on the ground of cruelty perpetrated on her by respondents despite giving an undertaking in the court but no action was taken. The respondent no. 1 also filed a divorce petition on false and frivolous grounds which was dismissed by Sh. P.K. Matoo, Ld. ADJ, KKD Courts.
4.It is also stated that the respondents have forcibly taken the custody of minor son of complainant and had refused to handover the custody of minor son to the complainant despite repeated requests. Respondent no.1 is not paying any maintenance either for the complainant or for the minor daughter in custody of complainant and the complainant is depending on the mercy of the parents for her sustenance as well as sustenance of her minor daughter. The complainant has no source of income and does not have any movable or immovable property in her name. The complainant is living in one room on the ground floor of the matrimonial house i.e. House No. E-111, Budh Nagar, Inderpuri,Delhi (hereinafter refer to as "shared household") alongwith her minor daughter and the respondents have been trying to dispossess her forcibly from the said portion of the matrimonial house despite the protection order.
CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 3/19 4
5.All the respondents filed their joint reply. In the joint reply filed by the respondents, the respondents denied all the allegations levelled by the complainant/aggrieved person as completely false and fabricated. It is stated that respondents never subjected the complainant to any cruelty or harrassment. On the contrary the complainant has left no stone unturned to harass the respondents. The complainant forcibly and illegally entered into their house i.e. E-111, J.J. Colony, Inderpuri, New Delhi-12 in collusion with her brothers, sister, mother and sister in law on 09.09.08 in the absence of the respondents. She has kept possession on the ground floor of the shared household illegally without any authority. The respondent no.2 is the owner of the shared household as the same was alloted by DDA (Slum and JJ) vide referrence No. D/2168/A-20/C2/82 dated 21.09.1982.The complainant committed theft in the shared household and took away all the original documents pertaining to property like Ration Card, allotment letter issued by DDA alongwith other household articles including costly jewellery . The respondent no. 3 also lodged a report DD No. 32 A dated 10.09.08 in respect of the same. She has no right to live in the shared household as the same is self owned property of respondent no.
2.
6.It is also stated that respondent no.2 has also disowned the complainant and respondent no.1 from his property by way of publication in newspaper Rastriya Sahara Delhi dated 16.09.08. The respondent no. 3 has also filed a criminal complaint case titled as Smt. Shakuntla Vs. Deepa & Ors. for theft committed by the complainant in CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 4/19 5 collusion with her relatives. It is also stated that the complainant also attempted to kill respondent no. 3 by pouring kerosene oil on 15.11.07 and for her treatment she had to remain at the hospital from 15.11.07 to 21.11.07 vide admission Card No. 43235. The respondent no.2 also made a complaint in this regard vide DD No. 19A dated 17.09.07 at PS Inderpuri and later a criminal complaint case was also filed.
7.During the proceedings of this case vide order dated 01.10.08 the respondents were restrained from dispossessing the complainant from the one room in the ground floor of the shared household. The said order was challenged by the respondents in appeal. The said appeal was disposed off in favour of complainant and the Ld. Appellate Court upheld the order passed on 01.10.08. Thereafter the respondents also filed the application for modification of the said order dated 01.10.08. The said application was dismissed by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 31.07.2012 observing that the complainant is living alongwith her minor daughter only in one room on the ground floor of shared household and cannot be asked to share the same with her in laws.
8.The complainant only examined herself as PW-1 in order to prove her case. The complainant deposed on the same lines in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A as in her petition, and reiterated and reaffirmed on oath the averments made by her in her petition/complaint. She has relied on two documents i.e. complaints made by her before SHO Inderpuri on 09.09.08 and 20.12.07 as Ex. PW 1/1 & 2 respectively.
CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 5/19 6 In her cross-examination, she has stated that she is only 10th passed. She has stated that in FIR No. 202/06 her husband and mother in law were sent to JC in which both were granted judicial custody for a period of 15 days and after releasing from jail, her husband took her to matrimonial home. She stated that except her matrimonial home, she never stayed with her husband on rent. On being asked she stated that she is not aware about the ownership of the shared household. She cannot say whether the shared household belongs to her father in law or the same was alloted by DDA. She denied the suggestion put to her that she has the information about the ownership of the shared household belonging to her father in law. She stated that she is unaware about the factum of electricity connection of the shared household being in the ame of her father in law. She denied the suggestion put to her that she ever lived with her husband at Narela Village on rent at house bearing no. WZ-28 with the directions of the Court in Bail matter. She denied the suggestion that she lived with her husband in rental accommodation at the house bearing no. WZ-28 Narela Village for long period. She has stated that she has been residing separately from her husband for the last more than 3 years and she had not met with her husband in these 3 years either at her matrimonial home or at her parental home.
She has denied the suggestion that she had forcibly entered into the house no. E-111, Inderpuri in collusion with her brother, mother, sister and sister in law after breaking the lock . She has also further denied the suggestion that she alongwith her brothers did not allow her father in law and mother in law to enter into the house. She also denied CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 6/19 7 the suggestion that her father in law and mother in law are wandering here and there and living on rent. She has denied that she after locking the room of the shared household at ground floor, is living with her parents most of the days. She denied that she visited her room after a gap of month, two months or six months only just to ensure whether her room is locked or not. She has denied the suggestion that she often used to say that the shared household is owned by her husband . She has also denied the suggestion that she had put Kerosene Oil on her mother in law on 15.11.07. She has denied that due to skin wound her mother in law remain admitted in RML Hospital, Delhi. She has also denied that it was in her knowledge that here mother in law was admitted in the hospital. She admitted that a criminal complaint case is pending against her in which she was summoned as accused and she is still facing trial on bail. She also admitted that Ration Card and Election card of shared household is in the name of her father in law. She denied that during the period of her stay at her matrimonial house she had taken entire jewellery in collusion with her brothers, sister, mother and bhabhi to her parental house. She has denied the suggestion that a theft case U/s 380/482/379/448/406 IPC PS Inderpuri is pending against her at Dwarka and the same is in her knowledge as she has been appearing in the same. She denied that any Kalendra U/s 107/150 Cr. P.C. was registered against her mother in law, father in law and her husband. She denied that her only intention is either to remain in the possession of the house illegally or to extract a huge amount of money for vacating the same or to harass/compelled them to help her financially.
CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 7/19 8 She denied that the jewellery which she has stolen from her matrimonial house belonging to her mother in law, was worth Rs. 6-7 lacs. She denied that she has no right to live in the shared household as the same does not belong to her husband. She also denied that her son Ritesh is being educated by her father & mother in law in any convent school. She further denied that her father & mother in law own no other house in addition to shared household. She stated that her father & mother in law own another house which she has seen but she does not remember the house number but it is situated in the abadi of Okhala however she cannot say whether the said house has been sold or not. She stated that she can show that house.
9.The respondents examined two witnesses in support of their case namely Sri Pal (father in law of complainant) as RW-1 and Rajesh (husband of the complainant) as RW-3. RW-2 was dropped.
10. The respondent no. 2 , Sri Pal deposed on the same lines in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A and reiterated and reaffirmed on oath the avernments made by him in his reply to this petition. He relied the documents i.e. the photocopy of FIR No. 202/06 dated 15.04.06 as Ex. RW 1/A, photocopy of report to Senior Official of the police as well as SHO, PS Inderpuri dated 17.11.07 Ex. RW1/B, photocopy of complaint dated 12.09.08 as Ex. RW 1/C, photocopy of passport bearing no. M869461 as Ex. RW 1/D, photocopy of electricity bill as Ex. RW 1/E, photocopy of ration card as Mark A, photocopy of electoral card is Mark-B, photocopy of two receipts issued by DDA in respect of payment of damages charges pertaining to house bearing CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 8/19 9 no. E-111, JJ Colony, Inderpuri, Narayana, Delhi as Ex. RW 1/H & I, photocopy of his treatment papers as Ex. RW1/J, copy of list of dowry articles received by complainant dated 03.04.06 as Mark -C, photocopy of newspaper as Ex. RW 1/L. He has also stated in his affidavit that on the false complaint of complainant a kalandra U/s 107/150 Cr. P.C. was registered against him which has been disposed off. He has also stated that he is very old and weak, and was earlier living on the ground floor of shared household and other floors have been given by him on rent for his sustenance and survival of his wife. He has also stated that now the complainant is living there alongwith her brothers, mother, sisters and her sister in laws after illegally dispossessing him from his own property.
In his cross examination he stated that he did not lodge any complaint against complainant before the complainant lodged FIR No. 202/06 at PS Kalyanpur U/s 406/498A. He also stated that the said FIR was quashed and petition U/s 125 Cr. P.C filed by the complainant was disposed of as compromised. He also stated that he filed complaints as well as other cases against complainant later on. He voluntarily added that after compromise, complainant started residing with him and his wife but she again started harrassing them, so he ousted the complainant as well as husband of complainant from his house and then filed complaint against complainant and her brothers. He admitted that his wife and son remained in judicial custody for about 15 days in FIR No. 202/06, U/s 406/498A IPC PS Kalayanpuri but he denied the suggestion that he had taken the complainant back to matrimonial house after being compelled by the court for compromise and not on CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 9/19 10 house after being compelled by the court for compromise and not on his own. He further stated that he has not filed original allotment letter of the property bearing no. E-111, Inderpuri, JJ Colony, Delhi-12 as the documents of the property has been taken away by the complainant. He also stated that son of complainant is in his custody however he denied the suggestion that he has taken the custody of his grandson forcibly. He conceded that he deposed from his son's (husband of complainant) side in the divorce petition filed by the husband of the complainant. The said divorce petition has been dismissed. He admitted that he has not given any single penny to the complainant qua her maintenance.
11. The respondent no. 1 i.e. husband of complainant examined himself as RW-3. RW-3 deposed on the same lines as his father, in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW3/1 and reiterated the averments. He has also stated that he is only 12th passed and has been kicked out from his house by the complainant. He has taken shelter at the house of his sister namely Manju. He has no source of income as he sometimes work as Munshi or sometimes as Cleaner of cars or sometimes he earn his livelihood by selling vegetables on pavement. He is having custody of his son and with great difficulty taking care of him. The school fees of his son is being paid by his father. Vide order dated 29.08.2013 of this court the right of complainant to cross examine RW-3 was forfeited.
CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 10/19 11
12. Detailed arguments were advanced by both the Ld. Counsels for parties. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record.
Brief Reasons for decision:
13.In order to be entitled to claim relief against any person arraigned as respondent, it is essential for the aggrieved person to show that she shared domestic relationship with the said respondent. The term domestic relationship has been defined in section 2 (f) which reads as under:
"domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;
The term respondent has been defined in section 2 (q) which reads as under:
"respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act;
Whether the domestic relationship between complainant and respondent no. 4 and 5 is established:
CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 11/19 12 The complainant has no where expressly and specifically stated that Respondent no. 4 & 5 i.e. her sister in law and husband of her sister in law, were living with her in the matrimonial house/shared household after her marriage with respondent no.1. In absence of clear and specific averment of sharing domestic relationship by the complainant with respondent no. 4 and 5, it is not established that complainant/aggrieved person shared domestic relationship with them. So, they are dropped.
Whether the complainant has proved domestic relationship with respondent no. 1 , 2 & 3 :-
The complainant has specifically stated that she was living with respondent no. 1,2 & 3 in the matrimonial house/shared household after her marriage with respondent no.1. The same has not been denied by the respondent no.1,2 & 3. So, domestic relationship is established between the complainant and respondent no. 1,2 & 3.
14. Now, the next question is whether the complainant has succeeded in showing that she was subjected to domestic violence by respondent no. 1, 2 & 3:
The complainant/aggrieved person has cited clearly in her petition that she was subjected to domestic violence by the respondents. She has also proved in her evidence complaints made by her on 20.12.07and 09.09.08 to SHO Inderpuri, Budh Nagar to substantiate her evidence about being subjected to domestic violence by the respondents. The DIR report of protection officer supports her case. The respondents have relied in their evidence on several litigations filed by them against the complainant to contend the contrary.
CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 12/19 13 However in the cross examination the respondent no.1 i.e. father in law of complainant admitted that no complaint was lodged by the respondents against the complainant before she made complaint for subjecting her to cruelty, and it was the complainant who lodged FIR No.202/06, U/s 406/498A PS Kalyanpur first and later on he filed complaints as well as other cases against complainant. The first complaint was filed by the complainant which culminated into compromise and only thereafter all the litigations were initiated by the respondents against the complainant. Thus, only on the basis of those complaints made by the respondents, it cannot be said that the respondents did not treat the aggrieved person with cruelty. Even otherwise, the respondent no.1 is not paying any maintenance to the complainant since he last deserted her which amounts to economic abuse. So, it is prima facie established that respondent no. 1,2 & 3 subjected the complainant to domestic violence.
15.Now I shall proceed to decide the reliefs to which the aggrieved person is entitled.
Reliefs U/s 19 of D.V. Act :-
The complainant is presently living on the ground floor in one room alongwith her minor daughter in the shared household i.e. E-111, Budh Nagar, Inderpuri, Delhi under the protection granted to her vide order dated 01.10.08. The said order was later upheld in the appellate court and later on my Ld. Predecessor also refused to modify the said order vide order dated 31.07.2012. It is argued by the respondents that the complainant has no right to live in the shared household as the CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 13/19 14 same is the self acquired property property of respondent no.2. The respondents have also relied on judgment titled as " S.R. Batra & another Vs. Taruna Batra, 2007 AIR (SC) 1118 in support of his contention. However the respondent no. 2 has not filed any original allotment letter of property/shared household to substantiate his plea that it is his self acquired property and given a very specious reason for not filing the same. It is stated that the complainant committed theft in the shared household and took away all the original documents pertaining to property like Ration Card, allotment letter issued by DDA alongwith other household articles including costly jewellery. He has also stated that matter was reported to PS Inderpuri, vide DD No. 32 A dated 10.09.08 but respondent no.1 failed to give any reason for not registration of FIR by the police on the said complaint.
Moreover the complainant clearly stated in her cross examination that after her marriage on 23.06.04 she always stayed with respondent no.1,2 & 3 at the shared household . Even after the compromise reached between the parties in the bail application of respondents, she was taken to the same house. Now she is compelled to live in the shared household in one room on ground floor alongwith her minor daughter as she has been left in the lurch by the respondents. She and her minor daughter have no other property to live in.
In case titled, " Eveneet Singh Vs. Prashant Kumar/Choudhary", I.A. 8479/10,8480/10 in CA (OS)1307/2010 & IA 3577/10 in CS (OS)505/2010 it was observed in para No.11 that :-
CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 14/19 15 " 11. .............. The broad and expansive nature of the Court's power to make a residence order is also underlined by the amplitude of the definition of "shared household", which is "where the person aggrieved lives or any stage has lived
(i) in a domestic relationship
(ii) either singly or alongwith the respondent and includes such a household
(a) whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent,
(b) owned or tenanted by either of them
(iii) in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes
(iv) 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 the shared household."
It is thus apparent that Parliamentary intention was to secure the rights of aggrieved persons in the shared household, which could be tenanted by the respondent (including relative of the husband) or in respect of which the respondent had jointly or singly any right, title, interest, or "equity". For instance, a widow living with mother-in-law, in premises owned by the latter, falls within a "domestic relationship", even if the mother-in-law does not have any right, title or interest, but is a tenant, or entitled to "equity" in those premises, the CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 15/19 16 same would be a "shared household". In such circumstances, the widowed daughter -in-law, can well claim protection from dispossession, notwithstanding that her husband never had any ownership right, in the premises, because she lived in it; if the mother-in-law , is a tenant, then, on the ground that she is tenant, or someone having equity. It may, however, be noticed here that Section 19, while referring to a 'respondent' lays down a limited exception under the proviso to 19 (1)(b), exempting women from being directed to remove themselves from the shared household. However, no such exception has been carved out for the other reliefs under Section 19, especially in respect of protection orders. Clearly, if the legislature had wanted to create another exception in favour of women, it could have done so. The omission here, seems deliberate and in consonance with the rest of the scheme of the Act. Another instance of a domestic relationship may be an orphaned sister, or widowed mother, living in her brother's or son's house; it falls within the definition of domestic relationship, (which is one where the parties are related by consanguinity, or marriage constitute a shared household, as the brother is clearly a respondent. In such a case too, if the widowed mother or sister is threatened with dispossession, they can secure reliefs under the Act, notwithstanding exclusive ownership of the property, by the son or brother. Thus, excluding the right of residence against properties where the husband has no right, share, interest of title, would CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 16/19 17 severly curtail the extent of the usefulness of the right to residence............... (emphasis supplied)"
16. As the complainant was always living in the shared household with the respondents after her marriage, she cannot be ousted from that house and rendered homeless alongwith minor daughter. Moreover even her husband i.e. respondent no.1 admitted in his evidence by way of affidavit as RW-3 that he was living on the ground floor of the said house alongwith complainant. Further it is pertinent to note that respondent no.2 has not specifically stated in his defence that he has no other property in his name or in the name of his wife and therefore he has no other property for his residence and residence of his wife. In fact the complainant in his cross examination specifically stated that the respondent no.2 & 3 own a house situated in the abadi of Okhala. Keeping in mind the aforesaid reasons I am of the view that it would be highly unjust to order ouster of complainant from the shared household. As far as the plea of respondent no. 2 & 3 that they have disowned the complainant and husband of the complainant from all their movable and immovable properties, the same appears to be stratagem by the respondents in laws to deprive the complainant of her legal rights. The said notice was published in newspaper by respondent no. 2 only after the complainant rejoined the company of respondents on reaching amicable settlement before the court dealing with the bail application of the accused persons. The same cannot be taken into consideration for denying the relief of residence to the complainant. So, it is ordered that respondents shall not CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 17/19 18 dispossess the complainant/aggrieved person and her minor daughter from the portion/room of shared household in her possession on the ground floor without following due procedure of law.
17.Monetary relief under Section 20 DV Act :-
The complainant has stated in her evidence on oath that she has no source of income and does not have any movable or immovable property in her name. She is totally dependent on mercy of her parents for her sustenance as well as sustenance of her minor daughter. She has also no where disclosed the earning and financial status of the respondent no. 1.The respondent no.1 has simply stated that he has no source of income. He has not given any reason that despite being an able bodied man, why he has not engaged himself in some gainful employment. He is presumed to be earning at least minimum wages. In these circumstances, the best guide to determine the income of respondent no. 1 would be Minimum Wages Act. As per the Minimum Wages Act, the wages of an unskilled labor is around Rs. 7,000/- per month. So, the income of respondent no.1 is assessed as Rs. 7,000/- per month for the purpose of disposal of present petition. But the respondent no.1 also has liability to maintain his son in his custody. Keeping in view the entire gamut of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that justice would be met if the respondent no. 1 pays an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month to complainant towards her maintenance and Rs. 1,000/- per month to his daughter from the date of filing of petition i.e. 17.09.2008 till she is entitled to receive the same.
CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 18/19 19 Considering the rising inflation, the aggrieved person shall be entitled to 10% yearly increase in the awarded maintenance.
Respondent no. 1 is directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within 9 months from today in equal installments and to furnish the monthly maintenance after the date of order, by way of money order or by deposit in the bank account of the petitioner on furnishing of account number of the same, by or before 15th day of each English calender month. The default shall be viewed in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Gaurav Sodhi Vs. Divya Sodhi - 120 DLT (2005) 426.
18. The complainant is at liberty to recover the maintenance amount by filing execution if no other recovery proceedings are pending before any court of law, for the same period. Interim maintenance paid, if any, shall stand adjusted.
19.No other relief is being granted to the complainant as no ground made out to award any other relief. Ordered accordingly.
20.Complaint stands disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (PRIYA MAHINDRA)
ON 10th January 2014 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRARTE
MAHILACOURT-02/DWARKA
NEW DELHI
CC No. 242/08 Deepa Vs. Sh.Rajesh Kumar 19/19