Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Smt. Asha Rani vs Smt. Sadhna Sharma on 11 April, 2023

IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN JAIN, ADDL. DISTRICT
    JUDGE­02, SOUTH­WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA
               COURTS, NEW DELHI

RCA DJ ADJ No.15/2022
CNR No.DLSW010028262022



In the matter of:
1.    Smt. Asha Rani
      W/o Shri Ramesh Chand,
      R/o D-2-A/10-D, Janakpuri,
      New Delhi-110058                            .......Appellant
                          versus

1.       Smt. Sadhna Sharma
         W/o Shri Himanshu Sharma,

2.       Shri Himanshu Sharma
         S/o Shri Ramesh Chand
         Both R/o Flat No.13, 3rd floor
         (Terrace of 3rd floor)
         Pocket-B, Sector-18,
         Dwarka Residential Scheme,
         Dwarka, New Delhi-110075                 ....Respondents

JUDGMENT

1. The present first regular civil appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2022 passed by Shri Divyam Lila, Ld. Civil Judge­01, SW, Dwarka Courts, whereby the suit of the appellant under Order XII, rule 6, CPC was decreed for the relief of possession by way of mandatory injunction against respondent nos.1 and 2 but with a condition that the appellant and her son i.e. respondent no.2 shall jointly RCA No.15/22 Asha Rani v. Sadhna Sharma& Anr.

and severely pay a sum of Rs.18000/­ per month to the respondent no.1 in order to enable respondent no.1 to identify a commensurate residence for herself.

2. The appellant in the present appeal is claiming the relief of modification of impugned judgment to the extent that she being the mother in law of respondent no.2 is not bound to maintain her daughter in law and it is only respondent no.1 her husband is liable to maintain her (R2) and therefore, the learned trial Court has committed an error and ordered the appellant and the respondent no.1 to jointly and severely pay Rs.18,000/­ per month to the respondent no.2.

3. In order to avoid confusion, the parties are referred to as per their original rank and status before the learned trial Court.

4. Briefly stated, the case before the learned trial Court is a classic case of dispute between the daughter in law one side and the father and mother in law on the other. As pleaded before the learned trial Court, it is the case of the plaintiff that her son defendant no.2 got married with defendant no.1 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on 31.01.2011 and thereafter all of them started residing together at D­2­A/10­D, Janakpuri, New Delhi­ 110058 and out of the wedlock, one male child was born but after the birth of the child, the defendants started harassing and humiliating the plaintiff and her husband and even defendant no.1 started raising illegal demands of separate house from the plaintiff and her husband and due to the threats of the defendant no.1 for implicating them in false dowry cases, the plaintiff RCA No.15/22 Asha Rani v. Sadhna Sharma& Anr.

shifted the defendants and their minor child to the terrace floor consisting of 2 rooms, drawing, dining, kitchen and toilet of MIG Flat No.13, 3rd floor (along with roof rights), Pocket­B, Sector­ 18, Dwarka Residential Scheme, Dwarka, New Delhi­110075 (hereinafter referred as the suit property).

5. It is further stated that the lower portion of the flat was under the occupation of the tenant which was subsequently got vacated by the plaintiff and the same is under her lock and key. In rest of the plaint, the plaintiff has averred various incidents of harassment and ill treatment at the hands of the defendant no.1 and the pressures created by defendant no.1 upon defendant no.2 for transfer of the suit flat in favour of defendant no.1 and on failure to accept that illegal demand, the various complaints filed by defendant no.1 before the NGOs, Women Cell and police station etc. Lastly, it is averred by the plaintiff that defendant no.1 is a quarrelsome lady and she always used to abuse the plaintiff and her family and therefore, in the month of November, 2019, the defendants were asked to remove their goods from the suit flat and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and even a notice debarring the defendants and severing the relationship with the defendants was got published in daily newspaper. On the basis of above, averments, the plaintiff before the learned trial Court has sought the relief of decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendants to hand over the peaceful possession of the suit property on the ground that the same exclusively belongs to her and defendants were RCA No.15/22 Asha Rani v. Sadhna Sharma& Anr.

permitted to live in the house solely on the mercy and consent of the plaintiff.

6. In written statement, defendant no.1 denied the claim of the plaintiff in toto. It is her stand that the plaintiff, her husband and defendant no.2 i.e. husband of defendant no.1 are harassing her and torturing her mentally as well as physically as she has given birth to a girl child and the plaintiff has wrongly mentioned in the plaint that a male child was born. It is further averred that she has no place to go anywhere, neither her parents are so supportive and she always tries to cooperate with the defendant no.2 and his family members but despite that they are conspiring with each other to throw her and her girl child out of the matrimonial home.

7. On merits, various allegations of demand of dowry, torture etc., were leveled by the defendant no.1 against the plaintiff and defendant no.2, however, it is admitted by her that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff.

8. On the other hand, after going through the written statement of defendant no.2 it is observed that the same is merely an eye wash and he admitted almost all the averments of the plaintiff as made in the plaint.

9. On the basis of the admission of the defendant no.1 and 2, the plaintiff filed application under Order XII, rule 6,CPC seeking judgment on admission and after hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned trial Court after relying upon the judgments titled as Vinay Verma v. Kanika Pasricha ­ and RCA No.15/22 Asha Rani v. Sadhna Sharma& Anr.

Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneh Ahuja has observed that the present case squarely falls in second category of cases as observed in Vinay Verma (Supra) i.e. "the second category of cases are those cases where there is a rift between the son and the daughter in law and either in collusion with the son or otherwise, an attempt is made to evict the daughter in law. In most cases, the son i.e. husband either simply does not appear in the proceedings or refuses/fails to provide maintenance to the wife". Resultantly, the learned Trial Court after relying upon the guidelines issued in Vinay Verma (supra) in order to balance the right of daughter in law and the right of the plaintiffs, decreed the suit but subject to the condition that the plaintiff and her son will pay jointly or severely a sum of Rs.18,000/­ per month to the defendant no.1 in order to enable her to find a suitable residence for herself.

10. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court has wrongly relied upon the judgment of Vinay Kumr (supra) as the facts of the said case are totally different from the case before the learned trial Court and thus, the judgment is not applicable. It is further argued that the learned trial Court has failed to consider that the respondents did not stop their quarrel and matrimonial dispute even after shifting them to the suit property and the same is evident from the copy of complaints filed by respondent no.1 herself which shows that she had filed a complaint dated 11.10.2019, 14.10.2019, 16.10.2019, 31.10.2019, 27.12.2019 and FIR No.001/2021 PS Dwarka and RCA No.15/22 Asha Rani v. Sadhna Sharma& Anr.

the above complaints shows the continuous quarrel and dispute between the respondents due to which respondent no.2 left the suit property and started residing separately. It is further argued that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the fact that after filing of the present petition, the respondent no.1 filed a petition under Section 12 of D.V. Act at Karkardooma Courts where the appellant and her husband are also made a party.

11. Per contra, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. He further argued that the act and conduct of respondent no.2 i.e. the husband of respondent no.1 as well as of the appellant clearly establishes that they are working in connivance with each other and the respondent no.2 has cunningly left the respondent no.1 at the suit property and shifted to another property regarding which he has not uttered a single word in his written statement filed before the Ld. trial Court and it is only after examination of defendant no.2 by the learned trial Court under Order 10, CPC on 22.09.2021, he has divulged the details of his place of residence and therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

12. I have heard the rival submissions and have carefully gone through the case file.

13. Before adverting further, it is observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as S. Vinitha v. Deputy RCA No.15/22 Asha Rani v. Sadhna Sharma& Anr.

Commissioner (Bangluru Urban District) (civil appeal no.3822/2020) decided on 16.12.2020, in order to harmonize the competing reliefs of a daughter in law and her in laws under the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the maintenance and the welfare of parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, respectively has held that the Tribunal under the Senior Citizen Act 2007, may have the authority to order an eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the Senior Citizen or parent, however, the over riding effect for remedy sought under the Senior Citizen Act 2007 cannot be interpreted to preclude all other competing remedies and protections that are sought to be conferred by the D.V. Act, 2005. It is further held that Section 36 of the Act of 2005 stipulates that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force and on the other hand, Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which is undoubtedly a later Act, stipulates that its provisions will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistence contained in any other enactment. However, the provisions of Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 giving it overriding force and effect, would not by themselves be conclusive of an intent to deprive a woman who claims a right in a share household as under D.V. Act of 2005 as allowing the Act of 2007 to have an overriding force and effect in all situations, irrespective of competing entitlement of a woman to a right in a share household within the meaning of D.V. Act of 2005, would RCA No.15/22 Asha Rani v. Sadhna Sharma& Anr.

defeat the object and purpose which the Parliament sought to achieve in enacting the latter legislation.

14. Similarly, in judgment titled as Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, 2020 SCC Online 841, while overruling the 2006 judgment in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the definition of 'shared household' given in Section 2(s) of the Act cannot be read to mean that it can only be that household which is household of the joint family of which the husband is a member or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share but a shared household can be any household belonging to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship, the woman has lived and in such a scenario the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) of the Act are satisfied and the said household will become a share household.

15. Lastly, in the judgment titled as Vinay Varma v. Kanika Pasricha & anr. 2019 SCC Online DEL. 11530, pronounced by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, after examining catena of judgments, in order to strike a balance between the PSC Act 2007 and D.V. Act 2005, has held in para no.4 as follows :

4. There are several categories of disputes which have arisen between parents/in-laws/children. The first category of cases are ones in which the parents/in-laws have developed acrimony either with the son and daughter- in-law jointly and/or individually resulting in the parents/in-laws seeking the right of exclusive residence either in the form of possession and injunction or seeking eviction of the son/ daughter-in-law. The second category of cases are also those where there is a RCA No.15/22 Asha Rani v. Sadhna Sharma& Anr.

rift between the son and the daughter- in-law and either in collusion with the son or otherwise, an attempt is made to evict the daughter-in-law. In most cases, the son i.e. the husband either simply does not appear in the proceedings or refuses/fails to provide maintenance to the wife. Further, in some cases it is noticed that the son is in collusion with the parents and leaves the residence of the parents only in order to enable his parents to evict the daughter-in-law. In the third category of cases, the son has actually moved out of the residence and lives in a different residence. However, the daughter-in-law refuses to move from the residence of the in-laws due to a lack of alternate accommodation or otherwise.

And in para no.46 of the judgment has laid down broad guidelines to be followed by the Courts, which is reproduced as follows:

46. However, later decisions of various High Courts have, while giving divergent opinions on the concept of `shared household‟, followed one uniform pattern in order to protect the daughter-in-law and to provide for a dignified roof/ shelter for her. The question then arises as to whether the obligation of providing the shelter or roof is upon the in-laws or upon the husband of the daughter-in-law i.e., the son. Some broad guidelines as set out below, can be followed by Courts in order to strike a balance between the PSC Act and the DV Act:

1. The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the son‟s/ daughter‟s family.

2. If the case involves eviction of a daughter in law, the court has to also ascertain whether the daughter-in-law was living as part of a joint family.

3. If the relationship is acrimonious, then the parents ought to be permitted to seek eviction of the RCA No.15/22 Asha Rani v. Sadhna Sharma& Anr.

son/daughter-in-law or daughter/son- in-law from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife would continue in terms of the principles under the DV Act.

4. If the relationship between the parents and the son are peaceful or if the parents are seen colluding with their son, then, an obligation to maintain and to provide for the shelter for the daughter-in-law would remain both upon the in-laws and the husband especially if they were living as part of a joint family. In such a situation, while parents would be entitled to seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from their property, an alternative reasonable accommodation would have to be provided to her.

5. In case the son or his family is ill-treating the parents then the parents would be entitled to seek unconditional eviction from their property so that they can live a peaceful life and also put the property to use for their generating income and for their own expenses for daily living.

6. If the son has abandoned both the parents and his own wife/children, then if the son‟s family was living as part of a joint family prior to the breakdown of relationships, the parents would be entitled to seek possession from their daughter-in- law, however, for a reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the daughter-in- law during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband.

16. The above judgment is relied upon by the learned trial Court and in light of the pleadings before the learned Trial Court and as discussed and appreciated by this Court in the opening paras of this judgment, there is no iota of doubt that the daughter in law was living as a part of joint family and the relationship RCA No.15/22 Asha Rani v. Sadhna Sharma& Anr.

between the plaintiff/appellant vis­a­vis with the defendant no.2/ respondent no.2 son is not at all acrimonious as there is no allegation leveled by plaintiff and the defendant no.2 against each other in the plaint as well as in the written statement. On the reading of the plaint as a whole as rightly observed by the learned Trial Court, the allegations of atrocities are leveled by the plaintiff only against the defendant no.1/daughter in law. It is also rightly observed by the learned Trial Court that the defendant no.2/son even in his written statement has not whispered anything about his current place of residence and so much so in para no.2 of his written statement he himself leveled allegations against defendant no.1 to the extent that she is guilty of utmost cruelties committed upon him and therefore, he has left the suit property and compelled to live somewhere else but he has not divulged the details of the present place of his residence and the same was divulged by him only when he was examined by the learned Trial Court. Thus, as rightly observed by the learned Trial Court, this Court has no hesitation to observe that the relationship between the plaintiff/mother in law and defendant no.2/son are peaceful and further this Court is of the considered view that the suit before the lerned Trial Court seeking eviction of the daughter in law as well as of the son is nothing else but a collusive one filed with a sole motive to evict the daughter in law from the suit property.

17. It is also relevant to mention that the appellant and the respondent no.1 are not residing in the same household as it is the RCA No.15/22 Asha Rani v. Sadhna Sharma& Anr.

case of the appellant herself that she is residing at D­2­A/10­D, Janakpuri, New Delhi and whereas, after the quarrelsome behaviour of the respondent no.1 and alleged threats by her, the respondent nos.1 and 2 were shifted to the terrace floor of the suit property situated at Dwarka, therefore, it cannot be held that the plaintiff is facing any day to day harassment at the hands of her daughter­in­law as she tried to picture in the suit before the Ld. Trial Court.

18. In view of the detailed discussions made above, this Court do not find any merit in the present appeal and thus, the same is hereby dismissed.

19. Trial court record be returned with copy of this judgment.

20. Appeal file be consigned to record room only after due completion and necessary action, as per Rules.

Pronounced in the open                                            (Sachin Jain)
Court on 11.04.2022                                     Addl. District Judge-02
                                                           South West District
                                                  Dwarka Courts Complex, Delhi

RCA No.15/22 Asha Rani v. Sadhna Sharma& Anr.