Delhi District Court
Sunny Arya vs Bhawna Arya on 30 May, 2024
CA No. 130/2023
Sunny Arya Vs. Bhawana Arya
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
CA No. 130/2023
1. Sh. Sunny Arya
S/o Sh. Subhash Chander Arya
2. Smt. Pushpa Arya
W/o Sh. Subhash Chander Arya
Both are R/o 34-A, DDA Flats,
Mansoravar Park, Shahdara, Delhi-32
....Appellants
Versus
Smt. Bhawna Arya
W/o Shri Sunny Arya
R/o 11/25, First Floor
Back Side Nehru Nagar
New Delhi-110065.
....Respondent
Date of filing : 25.04.2023
Arguments heard on : 24.05.2024
Date of pronouncement : 30.05.2024
JUDGMENT:
By this judgment, I shall dispose of the appeal filed by the appellants under provisions of Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as DV Act) assailing the impugned order dated 22.03.2023 passed by the Court of Ld. MM, Mahila Court-03, South-East, Saket, New Delhi, in complaint case no. 896/2021, whereby the Page No. 1 of 4 CA No. 130/2023 Sunny Arya Vs. Bhawana Arya application of the respondent seeking directions to freeze transaction in the bank locker no. 1443000110913120 with PNB, Shahadra was allowed.
2. I have heard learned counsels for the appellants and the respondent and perused the file.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has argued that the Ld. Trial court has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without considering the entire facts of the case. Ld. Trial court has failed to properly appreciate the material on record and has passed the impugned order on the basis of the surmises and conjectures. The said locker is a joint locker of the appellants. The appellant no. 2 is the senior citizen and had kept her valuable jewellery in the bank locker. All the istridhan were lying in the possession of the respondent and she took all her istridhan articles with her when she left the matrimonial home. The impugned order has caused irreparable loss and injury to the appellants. On these grounds, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside.
On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the respondent has argued that the appeal is without any merit as the trial court took into consideration all the facts as pleaded by both the parties and thereafter passed the impugned order. It is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
4. The complainant (respondent herein) has filed the application U/s 12 of The DV Act against the respondents Page No. 2 of 4 CA No. 130/2023 Sunny Arya Vs. Bhawana Arya (appellants herein) and has also sought protection order under Section 12 of The DV Act praying that istridhan articles are in the possession of the respondents and they be directed to return the same to the complainant. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant moved an application against the respondents seeking directions to freeze transaction in the bank locker no. 1443000110913120 with PNB, Shahadra.
The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as follows :
"Perused.
At this interim stage, when the evidence has not been led, the ownership of the articles kept in the locker, if any, cannot be determined. However, in case the articles alleged to be the istridhan of the complainant are misappropriated / disposed off, the petition of the complainant u/s 12 DV Act shall be rendered infructuous. In view of the same, it is just that the articles / istridhan are left intact till further orders. Let notice be issued to Branch Manager, PNB, Shahdara, Delhi for freezing the transactions in the above-mentioned locker till further orders. In case of any requirement/exigency, respondent shall be at liberty to apply for prior leave of the court in case he wishes to retrieve any articles from the locker."
5. Keeping in view the relief sought by the respondent in her complaint under Section 12 of The DV Act and her specific Page No. 3 of 4 CA No. 130/2023 Sunny Arya Vs. Bhawana Arya allegations that her istridhan articles are lying in the aforesaid bank locker, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 22.03.2023 of Ld. Trial Court which is a well reasoned order and the same is accordingly upheld. The appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merits.
6. Trial court record be sent back along with copy of judgment. The appeal file be consigned to the recordDigitally room. signed by RAJNEESH RAJNEESH KUMAR KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2024.05.30 GUPTA 11:58:00 +0530 Announced in the open court (RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA) today i.e. 30th May 2024 Principal District & Sessions Judge, South East, Saket Courts New Delhi Page No. 4 of 4