Delhi District Court
Cc No. 160/1/11 Ps: Sarai Rohilla Shaina ... vs . Riyazuddin & Ors. 1/16 on 10 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CC No.160/1/11
PS: SARAI ROHILLA
UID No:O2401R0526742011
IN THE MATTER OF
MST. SHAINA AFREEN
W/o SH. RIYAZUDDIN
D/o LATE SH. MOHD. ILYAS,
R/o A11/85, C, INDERLOK,
DELHI110085
........... COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. SH. RIYAZUDDIN
S/o MOHD. NIZAMUDDIN
2. MEENA
W/o MOHD. NIZAMUDDIN
BOTH R/o B6/44C, INDERLOK,
DELHI110035
.............RESPONDENTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 12.10.2011 DATE ON WHICH MATTER WAS RESERVED FOR ORDER : 10.04.2015 DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 10.04.2015 COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES: FOR THE COMPLAINANT : SH. ANIL DUTT SHARMA FOR THE RESPONDENTS : SH. AMIT PARASHAR & SH. PUNEET SINGHAL
CC NO. 160/1/11 PS: SARAI ROHILLA SHAINA AFREEN VS. RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. 1/16 BRIEF REASONS FOR JUST DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondents, respondent no. 1 is the husband and respondent no. 2 is the mother in law of the complainant. The brief facts of the case as have been disclosed in the complaint, wherein it is stated that the Nikah between complainant and respondent no.1 was solemnized on 27.09.2010 according to Muslim Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi. The Nikah/marriage was solemnized with great pump and show and huge amount of about Rs. 8 lacs was spent by complainant's parents on her Nikah/marriage and on the demand of respondents. Complainant's parents and relatives gave handsome articles and cash at the time of Nikah/marriage and during course of matrimonial alliance, silver and gold ornaments and gifts were also presented by parents and relatives. Besides that other gold and silver jewellery and other gifts etc., were presented at the time of her marriage.
2. It is further stated that just after reaching the matrimonial home the respondents started taunting for insufficient dowry articles. It is further stated that since the inception of marriage the behaviour of respondents was not good towards the complainant. Complainant was treated with cruelty by the respondents during her stay at the matrimonial home. They passed sarcastic remarks by saying that complainant's parents have not given them sufficient dowry and used to tell that they were getting better matches for respondent no.1, who were prepared to spend much more than what complainant's parents had spent in the marriage.
3. It is further stated that the respondents always claimed that their family was of high standard and status and claimed to perform the second marriage of respondent no. 1 for more dowry. All matrimonial dreams of the complainant were converted into nightmare due to nefarious acts and conduct of respondents. They jointly as well as severally inflicted inhuman cruelties upon the complainant and just after one CC NO. 160/1/11 PS: SARAI ROHILLA SHAINA AFREEN VS. RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. 2/16 month, beating, abusing, cursing the complainant had became a routine. It is pertinent to mention here that immediately after marriage, respondent no. 2 directed the complainant to handover her entire jewellery and she also took all the precious clothes and other articles in her custody. It is further stated that complainant was constantly taunted and tortured by the respondents on account of nonfulfillment of their illegal demands of one car and Rs. 1 lac in cash. Both the respondents jointly inflicted utmost cruelties upon the complainant by abusing taunting and beating her. Complainant was not allowed to remain in the society.
4. It is further stated that the respondents were repeatedly pressurizing the complainant to ask her widow mother to arrange one car and Rs. 1 lac in cash for the respondent no.1 but whenever the complainant asked them with folded hands that her mother is unable to fulfill their said huge demand, they used to abuse, quarrel and beat the complainant. It is further stated that just after two months of the marriage, one day the respondents asked the complainant to bring Rs. 1 lac and one car from her mother and when the complainant refused to do so, she was mercilessly beaten up by the respondents and they also thrown out the complainant from the matrimonial home with the threat not to come back in the matrimonial home without fulfilling their said demands or if she dared to come back without fulfilling their said demands they will kill her. Somehow, the complainant reached her parental home and narrated the said fact to her widow mother.
5. It is further stated that thereafter the complainant and her mother tried their level best to sort out the matter with the respondents with help of common relatives and well wishes etc., and did not lodge any complaint against the respondents just to save the matrimonial ties with the hope that after passing of time everything would be all right. It is further stated that only after great persuasions and efforts of the complainant and her mother as well as common relatives, the respondents realised their faults and they apologized for their conduct and behaviour and gave assurance that in future, they will not harass and torture the complainant in any manner whatsoever. On the said assurances of the respondents, the complainant came back CC NO. 160/1/11 PS: SARAI ROHILLA SHAINA AFREEN VS. RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. 3/16 with the respondents and mother of the complainant gave Rs. 25,000/ to the respondents.
6. It is further stated that thereafter about 45 days, all things remained normal but thereafter the respondents further started harassing and torturing the complainant in routine manner as earlier and further started raising their abovesaid illegal and unlawful demands. It is further stated that the respondent no. 2 used to create terror for the complainant by saying that " he will kill her if she did not go according to his mother's wish". Till this moment, complainant is unable to understand her mother's wish. One day the respondent no. 1 put hot tea on the complainant and her hand was badly burnt and complainant suffered great pain and agony.
7. It is further stated that since morning upto late in the evening, complainant was made to work as a maid servant and complainant used to wash clothes of the family and one day the respondent no. 2 was in anger and came to the complainant and showed the clothes that they are still dirty and you ( complainant herein) have not washed them properly on this respondent no. 2 caught hold the complainant from her hair and pushed her down on the floor, the respondent no. 1 also slapped the complainant on her face and complainant fainted due to the beating given by respondent no. 1, the respondent no. 2 was laughing at the complainant and were directing the respondent no. 1 to teach her a lesson so that complainant is forced to leave the matrimonial home as from the very beginning of complainant's marriage with the respondent no. 1, the respondent were not happy and wanted to get rid of the complainant for not bringing more dowry as per their demand. It is further stated that complainant's mother in law i.e. respondent no.2 herein used to call the complainant " Kulakshni" " Kalmuhi" & "Haramjadi" and may and many more abusing words.
8. It is further stated that respondent no. 2 used to instigate respondent no. 1 and on her instigation, respondent no. 1 slapped the complainant number of times on flimsy ground such as the meal prepared by her is not fit for humans and also used to CC NO. 160/1/11 PS: SARAI ROHILLA SHAINA AFREEN VS. RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. 4/16 abuse complainant's parents on this ground that they have not given her any training how to cook meal for the person like him. It is further stated that on the instigation of his mother, respondent no. 1 used to beat the complainant mercilessly and respondent no. 2 always used to advise the respondent no.1 that if they will continue this treatment to the complainant then she will automatically leave the matrimonial home.
9. It is further stated that on 20.08.2011 in the evening, the respondent no. 1 & 2 mercilessly beaten complainant and they also taunted complainant that if marriage of the respondent no. 1 was not solemnized with complainant, then they will marry the respondent no.1 in an house who can spent more than Rs. 15 lacs in the marriage in the kind of dowry and cash etc. They further raised abovesaid demand of Rs. 1 lac and one car and asked the complainant to bring the same from her widow mother and when complainant with folded hands requested them that her widow mother is unable to fulfill their said huge demands, they become infuriated and given merciless beatings to the complainant and thrown her out from the matrimonial home in wearing clothes. They further threatened that " EK BAR TO TUJHE LE AAYE THE ABKI BAR JABTAK HAMARI MANG PURI NAHI HOGI, TAB TAK HAM TUJHE IS GHAR ME NAHI GUSHNE DENGE". Somehow with great difficulties the complainant could reached could reached at her parental home.
10. It is further stated that thereafter complainant as well as complainant's widow mother and their relative tried to contact respondents to sort out the matter through telephone conversation as well as through personal visits but they did not pay any heed to the request of complainant's side. Respondents no. 1 to 2 threatened the complainant and complainant's mother that in case complainant dare to come back to matrimonial home, complainant will eliminated her from this world. It is further stated that when complainant was at matrimonial home, complainant was not allowed to even ask about those dowry articles and expensive clothes.
11. It is further stated that complainant's side tried their level best to mitigate/compromise the matter but all the endeavor to the above facts gone in deaf CC NO. 160/1/11 PS: SARAI ROHILLA SHAINA AFREEN VS. RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. 5/16 ears of respondent no. 1, in laws and the abovesaid persons. Several efforts were made by the complainant to ensure that marriage survives but proved futile, as respondent no. 1 and his mother were adamant to continue their unwarranted and illegal ways, they had planned to ruin the complainant completely and whenever complainant tried to talk with respondents for mutually settlement, they always threatened to kill the complainant. During the stay at her matrimonial home the complainant tolerated all the highhandedness on the part of respondents with hope that with the passage of time, they may improve and did not make any complaint bu they took advantage of the silence of the complainant their demands were increased day by day which cannot be met complainant's parents side. In fact, they had suppressed all the social norms and ruined life of the complainant, complainant is convicted that above mentioned continuing action would not only ruined her life but also adversely effect the faculty of complainant's mind and body. Just for the sake of saving her marital life with the respondent no. 1, the complainant never made any complaint against the respondents. However, the complainant reserves his right to take appropriate legal action against the respondents for their abovesaid illegal and unlawful acts with the competent authority.
12. It is further stated that all the dowry articles including complainant's istridhan are still in the physical and illegal custody of respondents. Despite repeated demands and requests of the complainant, the same has not been yet returned to the complainant and as such the respondents have committed criminally mis appropriated all belongings of the complainant including her istridhan/dowry articles and gifts etc. It is further stated that the nasty behaviour, act and conduct of respondents, complainant is in constants mentally stress and feeling herself that her life has been gone ruined and meaningless. The made the complainant hapless and her life was made miserable.
13. It is further stated that now it is absolutely unsafe for the complainant to live with the respondent no. 1 as the respondents have committed severe and gruesome cruelty towards the complainant. The respondents have treated the complainant CC NO. 160/1/11 PS: SARAI ROHILLA SHAINA AFREEN VS. RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. 6/16 worst than an animal. The complainant tolerated all the highhandedness and mal treatment on the part of the respondents with the hope that they may improve upon by the passage of time but all in vain. The tolerance has its limits, their lust cannot be quenched in any manner whatsoever.
14. It is further stated that the complainant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent no.1, the respondent no. 1 has not paid even a single penny towards maintenance to them till date nor he has made any provision for her maintenance. Whereas, the respondent no. 1 is legally, morally and ethically bound to do so but he intentionally and deliberately neglected complainant. It is further stated that the complainant was deserted by the respondent no. 1 since 20.08.2011 after physically and mentally torturing, the respondent no.1 and with the threat to kill if she came back without bringing car and dowry. It is further stated that the acts of cruelty of the respondents has caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the complainant that it would be harmful and injurious to live with them and there is danger to the life of complainant at the hands of the respondents as the complainant has sustained number of injuries when she was badly beaten by the respondents, they have also extended lot of support to the respondents in torture and harassment casued to the complainant.
15. It is further stated that the complainant has a reason to believe that the respondents have hatched a criminal conspiracy to get rid of the matrimonial life. It is further stated that the complainant has various time requested/demanded the respondents to return all the istridhan and dowry article but they have flatly refused to return the same despite repeated request and demands. It is further stated that the complainant was living under great stress and tension in her matrimonial home and she has completely broken and lost her sleep for days together. The complainant suffered mental torture and agony due to the indifferent attitude and cruel acts and misdeeds of the respondents.
16. It is further stated that the complainant had only experienced the unhappy, miserable life full of humiliation, accusation and mental agony of the whimsical, CC NO. 160/1/11 PS: SARAI ROHILLA SHAINA AFREEN VS. RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. 7/16 arrogant and noncooperative attitude of the respondents. The amount of humiliation and cruelty poured into the life a living/virtual hell which she could never imagine in her wildest dreams. It is further stated that respondent no. 1 is the man of means having sufficient and substantial income from his business of property dealing and manufacturing of cooler and is earning individually more than Rs. 50,000/ per month from the said business. He is also having enough bank balance and FDRs. The respondent no. 1 is maintaining mobile phone, motorcycle and is living luxuriously with all kinds of modern facilities/electronic gadgets such as T.V., Fridge, Washing Machine etc. It is further stated that whatever respondent no. 1 earns is there for his personal consumption and the persons dependent upon the respondent no. 1 is the complainant but he never came forward to pay even a single penny towards maintenance of the respondent no. 1. There is no other liability upon the respondent no. 1.
17. It is further stated that before the marriage of the parties the respondents told the mother of the complainant that respondent no. 1 is having independent income of more than Rs. 60,000/ per month. It is further stated that the complainant does not have any source of income nor she has got any movable or immovable property in her name. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 has deserted the complainant just for the lust of money without any rhyme and reason and has inflicted inhuman cruelties. Since the respondent no. 1 has not been maintaining the complainant after repeated requests, therefore, the complainant is constrained to file the present petition. The complainant is entitled to maintenance from the respondent no. 1 being her husband according to his means and income. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 is in a position to maintain the complainant but he is intentionally and deliberately not opting to do so, whereas he is legally bound to maintain the complainant, in fact the complainant need at least Rs. 20,000/ per month for the maintenance of the complainant and to meet the necessities of the life as per the status of the respondent no. 1.
18. It is further stated that there is no other impediment in directing the CC NO. 160/1/11 PS: SARAI ROHILLA SHAINA AFREEN VS. RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. 8/16 respondent no. 1 to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/ per month to each of the complainant. It is further stated that the respondents have committed the offence of threatening, physical violence, verbal and emotional abuse and mental torture, insult which prima facie shows that he has committed an offence punishable under the Act. It is further stated that the complainant has every apprehension of further domestic violence by the respondents against which relief is sought. It is further stated that finding no alternative to save herself and her right from the cruel clutches of the respondents, the complainant has to take the shelter of this Hon'ble court to seek the justice.
19. It is further stated that the respondents are intentionally and deliberately not allowing the complainant to enter in the matrimonial home. However, the complainant has every right to residence in the said premises being the legally wedded wife of the respondent no. 1 but due to the abovesaid acts and cruelties committed by the respondents, it is crystal clear that there is threat of life of the complainant and it is unsafe for the complainant to live in the said house. It is further stated that the complainant has no other own accommodation/ shelter to reside and presently the complainant is residing with her brother at their mercy and she is required separate rented accommodation for residence.
20. The following orders have been requested to be passed:
(a) Residence Order U/s 19 of the Act:
(i) to allow the complainant to live in the matrimonial home peacefully with dignity and respect or in the alternative provide suitable rented accommodation,
(ii) not to alienate/dispose off or encumber the shared household,
(b) Monetary Relief U/s 20 of the Act:
(i) directing the respondent no. 1 to pay monetary relief @ 20,000/ per month,
(c) Compensation and Damages @ Rs. 3 Lacs U/s 22 of the Act,
21. Vide order dated 12.10.2011, Ld. Predecessor directed to issue summons to the respondents. On receiving notice, respondents appeared before the court and CC NO. 160/1/11 PS: SARAI ROHILLA SHAINA AFREEN VS. RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. 9/16 expressed their willingness to contest the petition. They were directed to file written statement with advance copy to the opposite party, which was filed on 24.12.2011. Vide order dated 01.03.2012, Ld. Predecessor disposed off the Interim Application of complainant. Vide said order, respondent no. 1 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/ per month as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the present petition till its disposal. Subsequent thereto matter was fixed for complainant evidence.
22. In support of her case, the complainant has examined herself as CW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex.CW1/A, bearing her signatures at point A & B and also relied upon documents which are Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/2 and Mark 'A'. In rebuttal, respondents examined respondent no.1 as RW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex RW1/A, bearing his signatures at point A &B.
23. Subsequent thereto, matter was fixed for final arguments. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for complainant submitted that the complainant has mentioned allegations with specific details in respect to commission of domestic violence, which have not been negated during cross examination. It was further submitted that no value can be attached to respondent no.1 evidence by way of affidavit as he has admitted during cross examination that the contents of affidavit were not over to him by his advocate after its preparation. It was further submitted that document Ex RW1/1 can not be read in evidence as its genuineness is under challenge. It was also submitted that in written statement, respondents have claimed to have provided all the facilities to the complainant at the matrimonial house, which proves that they have sufficient means. The respondent no.1 has failed to prove his employment and income by way of documentary evidence or examination of any other witness. It was also submitted that respondent no.1 has mentioned contradictory facts about his employment. In affidavit Ex RW1/A, he has claimed to be working as labourer in factory engaged in manufacturing of Tanky/Petty and earning Rs. 4,000/ pm but during cross examination, he has stated CC NO. 160/1/11 PS: SARAI ROHILLA SHAINA AFREEN VS. RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. 10/16 to be working as Salesman in a footwear shop. It was also submitted that during cross examination of CW1 neither any question has been put nor has suggestion been given to negate her claim about the income of respondent no.1 from various sources.
24. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the allegations of the complainant are false and incorrect. The families of both the sides being known to each other, were aware about each other's financial conditions before fixation of the marriage. The marriage was solemnized in a very simple manner at the Masjid and expenses were jointly borne by them. The claims of complainant are highly exaggerated. The complainant has filed the present case with the sole motive of extorting money from the respondents. She had demanded Rs. 2 Lacs to settle the matter. It was further submitted that no bill, invoice etc., has been filed and proved on record to prove the source of dowry articles. It was further submitted that root cause of the dispute was complainant's illicit relationship with some other man and not the demand of dowry as alleged in the petition. It was further submitted that complainant has failed to prove the employment and income of respondent no.1. During cross examination, she has admitted that she has not filed any documentary proof in this regard. She has admitted that she never visited the shop of respondent no.1 and was not aware as to how many workers are working in his shop.
25. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with their assistance.
26. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that complainant in order to be entitled to the relief under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is required to establish, that firstly there is a domestic relationship as defined u/s 2(f) of the abovesaid Act between complainant and respondents and thereafter it is also required to be established that she has been a victim of domestic violence as defined u/s 3 of the said Act.
Domestic relationship has been defined under the Act in Section 2(f) as under : CC NO. 160/1/11 PS: SARAI ROHILLA SHAINA AFREEN VS. RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. 11/16
(f)"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.
27. It be observed that the respondents have not disputed the factum of domestic relationship with the complainant at any point of time. The factum of marriage between complainant and respondent no. 1 is also proved through document Ex. CW1/1 & Ex CW1/2 i. e. marriage card and marriage photographs. Hence, domestic relationship between the parties stand proved.
28. It is also incumbent upon the complainant to establish that she has been a victim of domestic violence. CW 1 / complainant has mentioned at para no. 3 to 21 of the affidavit Ex CW1/A about various incidents and acts of domestic violence committed upon her by the respondents. Though the allegations of commission of domestic violence in furtherance of more dowry appear to be exaggerated. However, the complainant has mentioned about other kinds of physicalmental torture, insult, verbal and emotional abuses by demeaning, humiliating or undermining and ridiculing her. The complainant has also mentioned that the respondent no.1 had not made any provisions for her maintenance. The complainant was left at her parental house by the respondent no.1 and never taken back to the matrimonial house, due to which she was forced to live at the parental house. The complainant has also mentioned that her istridhan articles are still in the possession of the respondents and she has apprehension that same shall be misappropriated by them.
29. It be observed that though the respondents have claimed that the complainant has been having illicit relationship outside the marriage and the case has been filed for monetary gain, however they have not been able to negate the stand of complainant in this respect either through cross examination or by respondent evidence. It be observed that most of the cross examination has been conducted on the aspect of employment and income of the respondent no.1 and no question has been put to negate the claims of commission of acts of domestic CC NO. 160/1/11 PS: SARAI ROHILLA SHAINA AFREEN VS. RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. 12/16 violence. Hence, the court is of the view that the complainant has been a victim of domestic violence.
30. By way of present application, the complainant has prayed for protection order u/s 18 of the Act. The complainant has not narrated any recent incident or acts of commission of domestic violence being committed upon her after their separation therefore, no ground is made out to pass protection order in favour of the complainant.
31. So far as residence order under section 19 is concerned, it be observed that the complainant has requested for passing of restraining order against the respondents to allow her to live in the matrimonial house peacefully with dignity and respect. In this regard, the court is of the view that the relationship between the parties is not cordial as they have been living separately since long. In such situation, reinstatement of complainant at the shared household may aggravate the situation. So far as prayer regarding making provision of suitable alternative accommodation or to pay rent amount of Rs. 5,000/ per month is concerned, in this regard, the court is of the view that "Maintenance/Monetary'' relief shall include food, clothing, medical expenses, residence etc., hence, there is no need to direct provision of alternative accommodation or to pay rent amount be made for the complainant. Other reliefs as prayed, can not be granted in favour of the complainant on account of her failure to prove her claims in this regard.
32. Now coming to Monetary relief under section 20, in this regard, the court is of the view that the respondent no.1 being husband of the complainant, is legally and morally bound to maintain her. It be observed that the complainant has not brought any evidence in respect to employment and income of respondent no.1. During cross examination, she has admitted that she has not filed any documentary proof of income of respondent no.1. Though she has claimed that respondent no.1 is running his own business at Shahzada Bagh, Inderlok but she has admitted having no knowledge as to how many labourers are working under the respondent. She has also admitted that she never seen the labourers as she never went to the factory of CC NO. 160/1/11 PS: SARAI ROHILLA SHAINA AFREEN VS. RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. 13/16 the respondent no.1. She has also admitted that she does not know the name of the shop/factory or ownership of respondent no.1 in respect to said shop. During cross examination, she has further deposed that she does not know whether respondent no.1 is working as part time property dealer. She also deposed that she does not know the account where the respondent no.1 is holding bank balance, fixed deposits etc., she has also deposed that she does not know the number of vehicle which the respondent no.1 owns. She has admitted that prior to marriage, both the families knew each other being close relatives hence it can be safely presumed that complainant and her family were aware about the financial condition of respondent no. 1.
33. It further be observed that during cross examination, respondent no.1 has admitted that he has been living in the house owned by his father. He has deposed that at the time of marriage, he used to work as Salesman in a suitcase factory and earn about Rs.4000/ per month. He has admitted that he is working as Salesman in a footwear shop at Inderlok since one year and earning about Rs.5000/ per month. From the testimonies of the parties, it is clear that there is no cogent evidence to assess the income of the respondent no.1 but the quantum of maintenance can be decided on the basis of admissions made by the parties. Respondent no.1 has admitted that he is living in the house owned by his father. He has not mentioned about the dependency of other family members upon him. He has admitted is monthly income about Rs.5000/per month however his plea in this regard can not be believed as he has not led evidence to prove his income. In the given facts and circumstances, having regard to the status and responsibilities of the parties, respondent no. 1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/ ( Rs. Three Thousand only )per month in favour of the complainant from the date of filing of present petition. Payment shall be made by 10th of every month by instant money order or be deposited in the bank account of the petitioner. Arrears shall be cleared within 6 months. Maintenance awarded in other proceedings shall be liable to adjustment.
34. Compensation and damages under section 22 have also been prayed. It be CC NO. 160/1/11 PS: SARAI ROHILLA SHAINA AFREEN VS. RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. 14/16 observed that the complainant has not been able to prove mental & emotional injuries caused to her. Accordingly, the prayer of compensation and damages are declined.
35. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
36. Copy of this order be given dasti to the parties.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (MONA TARDI KERKETTA)
ON 10.04.2015 MM02:MAHILACOURTS
THC: DELHI:10.04.2015
CC NO. 160/1/11 PS: SARAI ROHILLA SHAINA AFREEN VS. RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. 15/16 CC No. 160/1/11 PS: Sarai Rohilla Shaina Afreen Vs. Riyazuddin & ors.
10.04.2015 Present: Complainant with Ld. Counsel Sh. Anil Dutt Sharma.
Respondents with Sh. Puneet Singhal, LAC.
Matter is fixed for order.
Vide separate detailed order announced in the open court, the present complaint is disposed off.
File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(MONA TARDI KERKETTA) MM02: Mahila Courts THC: Delhi : 10.04.2015 CC NO. 160/1/11 PS: SARAI ROHILLA SHAINA AFREEN VS. RIYAZUDDIN & ORS. 16/16