Delhi District Court
Munni Devi vs Ajay @ Amit And Anr on 6 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHITRANSHI ARORA , CIVIL
JUDGE-03, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
CS SCJ 840/20
MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR.
In the matter of:-
Munni Devi
W/o Shri Rajpal
R/o: 157-A, Block-B, Nanhe Park,
Uttam Nagar
New Delhi-110059 ................Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Ajay @ Amit
S/o Shri Rajpal
2. Mamta @ Alka
W/o Ajay
Both R/o 157-A, Block B, Nanhe Park,
Uttam Nagar
New Delhi -110059 .............Defendants
SUIT FOR MANDATORY & PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Date of institution of the suit : 02.11.2020
Judgment reserved on : 24.10.2024
Date of judgment : 06.11.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit for mandatory and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. The defendant no.1 is the CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 1 of 35 son of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 is the daughter in law. The plaintiff has filed the suit for mandatory injunction seeking directions to be given to the defendants to hand over the peaceful, vacant, physical possession of the suit property i.e first floor of the property No. 157 A, measuring 30 sq. yards, out of khasra no. 18/9, village Matiyala, Colony known as Nanhe Park, Block-B, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi -110059 and permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in, or creating any hindrance in the peaceful use and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff and from selling, alienating, transferring, gifting or creating any third party interest in the suit property.
BRIEF FACTS AS PER THE PLAINT: -
2. The plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the property No. 157 A, measuring 30 sq. yards, out of khasra no. 18/9, village Matiyala, Colony known as Nanhe Park, Block-B, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi -110059, consisting of one room, one toilet and one kitchen in the ground floor and one room, one toilet and one temporary shed in the first floor, (hereinafter referred to as the ' property in question') having purchased it from Smt. Shanta Kumari, vide registered GPA, Will, Affidavit, Agreement to Sell, Possession Letter and Receipt dated 08.04.2004. The plaintiff is presently residing on the ground floor and the CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 2 of 35 defendants are residing on the first floor i.e. the suit property.
3. At the request of the defendants, the plaintiff and her husband allowed them to stay for few months in the suit property, after their marriage, on the assurance that they will shift to a rented accommodation within a few months and will pay the electricity bill, water bill, LPG gas bill and support the plaintiff and her husband in their old age.
4. In the month of January 2020, the plaintiff's mother in law shifted from Agra to stay with her son in the evening of her life. The plaintiff and her son intended to build a temporary structure on the suit property to accommodate her. However, the defendants did not allow them to complete the construction and were forced to accommodate her on the ground floor. The mother in law of the plaintiff expired in August 2020.
5. The defendants, after one month of their marriage, started abusing the plaintiff, her husband and their daughter. The defendants never cooperated in getting the plaintiff treated for her old age ailments. The defendants did not financially help the plaintiff in getting the elder daughter married. Around eight years back, the defendant no. 1 hit his father and the defendant no. 2 hit on the head of the elder daughter of the plaintiff, when she tried to save the plaintiff from the hands of defendant no. 1. As a consequence of this physical atrocity, the defendants were CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 3 of 35 asked to vacate the suit property immediately and a police complaint was filed. The defendants left the property and shifted to a rented accommodation.
6. After a few years, the defendants again approached the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff's husband to allow them to live in the suit property and promised to pay a rent of Rs. 4,000/- for the same. Defendants entered forcefully in the suit property again despite reluctance of the plaintiff and her daughter. However, the defendants neither paid the rent, nor the electricity or water bill. The defendants started abusing and manhandling the plaintiff and her husband. On 18.10.2020, when the plaintiff requested the defendant no. 1 to pay the outstanding electricity bill and to vacate the suit property, the defendant no. 1 abused the plaintiff. When the husband of the plaintiff tried to stop the defendant no.1, he pushed the plaintiff and her husband to a wall and slapped the husband of the plaintiff in the presence of the younger daughter. When the younger daughter tried to stop the defendant no.1, the defendant no. 2 dragged her and pulled her down from the first floor to the ground floor and beat her up.
7. The plaintiff and her husband do not have enough money for their survival and despite continuous requests of the plaintiff to the defendants to vacate the suit property so that they can some earn some rent out of it, the defendants have been torturing and harassing the plaintiff. The CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 4 of 35 defendant no. 2 had also tried to assassinate the character of the plaintiff's daughter, in order to disturb her marital prospects. On 15.10.2017, when the plaintiff's husband refused to give the property papers to defendant no. 1, he dragged the plaintiff's husband and twisted his hand.
8. Defendants have physically and mentally tortured the plaintiff and her husband in many ways. They also stopped the water flow from the overhead water tank so that the plaintiffs suffer for drinking water as well. The defendants never financially supported the plaintiff. The elder daughter has assured financial help to the plaintiff to get the younger daughter married. Due to such conduct, the plaintiff and her husband have debarred the defendants from all their movable and immovable properties on 30.07.2019. The plaintiff also intimated the same to the police on 22.01.2020 and to the DC Kapashera on 24.01.2020. No action was taken on the complaints of the plaintiff due to covid period.
9. On 13.10.2020, the defendant no. 1 again pushed the plaintiff when the plaintiff objected against keeping their son's cycle on the ground floor.
10. Despite multiple requests, the defendants have failed to vacate the suit property and have continued to harass the plaintiff, her husband and their daughter. The defendants have been threatening the defendants, that if she does not CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 5 of 35 transfer the suit property to them, they will disturb the life of the younger sister also.
11. In the background of these averments, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS: -
12. In the Written Statement filed by the defendants, they have denied the averments of the plaintiff, and made the following preliminary objections as-
(i) The present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts and has not approached the court with clean hands;
(ii) The plaintiff has no right to recover possession of the suit property as it is the matrimonial house of defendant no. 2 after her marriage with defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 has been earning for the last 20-21 years and has contributed Rs. 20,000/- towards the purchase of the property No. 157 A, in the name of the plaintiff. The suit property was duly constructed by defendant no.
1 before the solemnization of his marriage;
(iii) The suit has been filed by the plaintiff just to harass the defendants to oust them from the suit property at the instance of her daughters. The CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 6 of 35 defendant no. 1 has been residing with his parents in the property from the year 2004 and defendant no. 2 has been residing in the suit property after her marriage on 06.02.2010. The defendant no. 1 earns Rs. 10,000/- per month by ironing clothes in a society in Dwarka and is struggling to make ends meet. The defendant no. 1 has been paying the electricity bills of the property in question since 2015;
(iv) The plaintiff has not paid the proper court fees;
(v) The suit is without any cause of action;
(vi) The suit is barred by law as the defendant no, 1 has the right, title and interest in the suit property as he has contributed Rs. 20,000/- in purchasing the property and has constructed the suit property.
13. In para-wise reply on merits, the defendants have stated that the fact that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the property is a matter of record, yet claimed that the said fact needs to be proved on the ground that the defendant no. 1 has contributed Rs. 20,000/- in purchasing the property and has constructed the first floor of the property i.e. the suit property. They have denied the allegations of the plaintiff that they are forcibly occupying the suit property and that they have harassed or abused the CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 7 of 35 plaintiff. They have asserted that they took proper care of their grand mother and used to give her food and wash her clothes. They have averred that defendant no. 1 always took his parents to the hospital/ dispensary for their treatment and that he had given Rs. 30,000/- in the marriage of her sister to his father. They have denied the incidents of abuse and physical atrocity as alleged by the plaintiff. They have denied that they have ever stayed in a rented accommodation and asserted that the defendant no. 1 is helping his parents financially every month. The electricity bills for the last three months could not be paid to BSES due to the financial crisis on account of covid pandemic and due to the harassment caused by the plaintiff. When the defendant no. 1 approached the office of BSES for paying the bills and for getting the electricity re-connected, the BSES demanded the property papers and address proof of the ownership of the property. However, the plaintiff denied giving the same to the defendant no.1 and told him to vacate the suit property. The defendants have denied that they ever stopped the water flow and asserted that the water connection and the water motor is installed on the ground floor of the property which is in possession of the plaintiff. They have asserted that it was the plaintiff and her husband who stopped the water supply to the defendants. The defendants took care of their father, when he was admitted in Patel Nagar and paid all his bills. The defendants have prayed that the suit be dismissed with cost.
CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 8 of 35 REPICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF:-
14. The plaintiff filed the replication to the written statement filed by defendants, wherein she reiterated the contents of the plaint and denied the averments made by the defendants in the written statement as false and frivolous. The plaintiff has further asserted that the property in question is the self acquired property of the plaintiff and it is upon her to allow someone to reside therein.
ISSUES: -
15. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed vide order dated 18.08.2023: -
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as claimed in prayer clause (A) of the plaint? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as claimed in prayer clause (B) of the plaint? OPP (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as claimed in prayer clause (C) of the plaint? OPP (4) Whether the suit property is the matrimonial home/shared house-hold of defendant no.2? OPD2 CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 9 of 35 (5) Relief PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE: -
16. Smt. Munni Devi, the plaintiff deposed as PW-1, vide affidavit of evidence, exhibited as Ex.PW1/A, wherein she reiterated the contents of the plaint.
17. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the contents are not being reproduced again. The plaintiff relied upon the following documents: -
Sl. Documents Exhibits
No.
1 Copy of registered General Ex.PW1/1
power of attorney, registered (Colly.)
will, receipt, affidavit, (OSR)
agreement to sell and
purchase, possession letter,
Aadhaar card of plaintiff
2 Original copy of electricity Ex.PW1/2
bill
3 Original copy of affidavit of Ex.PW1/3
Debar
4 Newspaper cutting of Komi Ex.PW1/4
Patrika on 31.07.2019
5 Copy of complaint dated Ex.PW1/5
24.01.2020
6 Original site plan Ex.PW1/6
18. PW-1 was duly cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the defendants. During cross examination, she stated that she purchased the property on 08.04.2004, when the defendant no. 1 was not working. She denied the CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 10 of 35 suggestion that the defendant no. 1 was working in the year 2004 and the monthly income of the house of Rs.
10,000/- was inclusive of his income as well. She answered the suggestion in affirmative that the defendant no. 2 came to the suit property after her marriage with defendant no. 1 and both the defendants have been residing in the suit property since then. She answered the suggestion in affirmative that a case u/s 498 A/323/504/506 IPC is pending in Etah, U. P. against her, her husband and her daughters.
19. Thereafter, vide separate statement of plaintiff, plaintiff evidence was closed on 29.05.2024. The matter was then put up for defendant evidence.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE: -
20. Sh. Ajay, the defendant no. 1 deposed as DW-1, vide affidavit of evidence, exhibited as Ex.DW1/A, wherein he reiterated the contents of the Written Statement.
21. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the contents are not being reproduced again. The defendant no. 1 relied upon the following documents as under: -
Sl. No. Documents Exhibits
1 Copy of Aadhaar Ex.DW1/1 (OSR)
Card (page no. 68)
2 Copy of bills and Ex.DW1/2 (from
CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 11 of 35
payment receipts of pages 27 to 66)
BSES (OSR)
22. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. During cross examination, he stated that he is currently residing at Matiyala at his chacha's house, where he has been residing since the last one year. He stated that he was residing at his mother's /plaintiff's address since 2004. However, he had to leave the same since his mother had disconnected the electricity and water connection. He again stated that the electricity got disconnected since he could not pay the entire bill, which was around Rs. 10,000/- and his mother refused to support him financially and she got the electricity disconnected. There was no formal application for disconnection of electricity moved by his mother. He voluntarily stated that he was informed by the electricity department that his mother had filed an application for disconnection of electricity with the department. He deposed that his mother had purchased the suit property from one Mrs. Shanti Devi in the year 2004 and he was not present at the time of execution of the documents in favor of his mother. He stated that he has no proof to show that he contributed Rs. 20,000/- in purchase of the suit property, which he had collected from ironing clothes at sector -18, Kargil Apartment. He stated that he used to earn Rs. 250- 300 per day in the year 2004 and he was allotted a specific place by the Kargil Apartment Society, Sector -18, to iron clothes. However, he stated CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 12 of 35 that he cannot furnish proof of the same. He stated that he has no document or evidence to prove that he has constructed the first floor i.e. the suit property. He stated that at present he is not paying the electricity bill of the suit property and clarified that he was paying the electricity bill for the property in question, including the suit property before the disconnection of the bill. He answered the suggestion in affirmative that his wife has filed a criminal case u/s498 A IPC against his mother, father, sister and brother in law in Etah, U. P. He stated that his wife had filed a complaint against his mother and father in PS Bindapur. He stated that he used to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to his mother for her monthly expenses, however, he does not remember the exact duration for which he had paid the same to his mother. He answered the suggestion in affirmative that though he had promised to make the payment of Rs. 4,000/- to his mother as monthly expenses, before the Sr. Citizen Tribunal, however, he had not paid the same to his mother. He answered the suggestion in affirmative that his mother is the owner of the suit property and he can reside therein only on her permission and her consent.
23. Thereafter, Smt. Mamta, the defendant no. 2 deposed as DW-2, vide affidavit of evidence, exhibited as Ex. DW-2/A, wherein she reiterated the contents of the Written Statement.
CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 13 of 35
24. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the contents are not being reproduced again. The defendant no. 2 relied upon the following documents as under: -
Sl. No. Documents Exhibits
1 Copy of Aadhaar Card Ex. DW-2/1
(OSR)
2 Copy of complaint to Ex. CW-1/4
SHO PS Bindapur (de-exhibited
dated 19.10.2020 and marked
as Mark A).
25. She was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. During cross examination, she stated that she has been residing with her parents since last 2-3 years as the plaintiff has disconnected the electricity. She stated that she does not know as to who got the treatment of her father in law done at Patel Nagar Hospital and who paid for the same. She stated that she does not know the amount which her husband used to spend as monthly expenses for the family. She stated that the suit property is her matrimonial home and she has a right to reside in it.
26. Thereafter, Sh. Ramesh Kumar, uncle (chacha) of defendant no. 1 deposed as DW-3 vide evidence affidavit exhibited as Ex.DW-3/A. He deposed in favour of the defendants and averred that the suit property was constructed by defendant no. 1 before his marriage and that the defendant no. 2 came to the suit property as her matrimonial house after the marriage with defendant no. 1.
CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 14 of 35 He further affirmed that the defendant no. 1 is residing with him as the plaintiff had cut off the electricity connection of the defendants.
27. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. During cross-examination, he stated that he is residing in a rented accommodation. He stated that he cannot say as to when the electricity was disconnected by the plaintiff. He stated that he cannot say on which ground the present case has been filed by the plaintiff.
28. Vide separate statement of defendants, the defendants evidence was closed on 24.09.2024. This is the entire evidence adduced in this matter.
FINAL ARGUMENTS: -
29. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.
Ld. counsel for the plaintiff filed Written arguments and Ld. counsel for the defendants advanced oral arguments.
30. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the property in question and the defendants have no right to continue residing in the suit property without the permission and consent of the plaintiff. The defendants have continuously tortured, abused and harassed the plaintiff and her family, due to which the plaintiff debarred the defendants from all her movable and immovable properties. Despite multiple CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 15 of 35 requests and complaints, the defendants have not vacated the suit property and have threatened that they will dispossess the plaintiff from the property in question. Therefore, it is imperative that the decree of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff.
31. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendants argued that the defendant no. 1 has an independent right on the suit property as he has contributed Rs. 20,000/- in purchasing the property in question and has also constructed the suit property from his own funds. The defendant no. 2 has a right to reside in the property as it is her matrimonial house and she cannot be evicted from the suit property, even though the property stands in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed.
32. I have heard the submissions advanced by the Ld. counsels for the parties. I have also perused the entire case record meticulously.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS: -
Issue no.1- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as claimed in prayer clause (A) of the plaint? OPP And CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 16 of 35 Issue no. 4- Whether the suit property is the matrimonial home/shared house-hold of defendant no.2? OPD2
33. Issue no.1 and issue no. 4 are being dealt together since they are connected.
34. The plaintiff has prayed for the relief of mandatory injunction seeking directions to be given to the defendants to handover the physical vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The burden to prove this issue lies on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has asserted that she is the owner of the property in question and the defendants entered the suit property forcibly despite reluctance of the plaintiff and her daughter. Since the defendants started torturing her and her husband and have committed physical atrocities, the plaintiff wishes that the defendants vacate the suit property. However, despite multiple requests, the defendants have not vacated the suit property.
35. The defendants, though have admitted the ownership of the plaintiff over the property in question, have asserted that the defendant no. 1 has the right, title and interest in the suit property, since he contributed Rs. 20,000/- in purchase of the property and had constructed the suit property. Further, the defendant no. 2 has a right to reside in the property as it is her matrimonial home.
36. As far as defendant no. 1's assertion is concerned, it is important to highlight that the defendant no. 1 has not brought any document to prove that he had contributed his CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 17 of 35 share in the purchase of the suit property or that he had constructed the suit property. During cross-examination, the defendant no. 1 admitted that he has no proof to show that he contributed Rs. 20,000/- in purchase of the suit property. Further, when the defendant no. 1 was questioned regarding his earnings in the year 2004, he stated that he used to iron clothes at the Kargil Apartment Society, Sector -18, Dwarka but submitted that he cannot furnish proof of the same.
37. In fact, during his cross-examination, he admitted that his mother is the owner of the suit property and he can reside there only on her permission and her consent. It is also a matter of record that the defendant has not placed on record any document to show that he constructed the suit property from his own funds. Therefore, the averments of the defendant no. 1 made in the written statement remain unproved. This leads to the conclusion that the defendant no. 1 has failed to show his independent right, title and interest in the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant no. 1.
38. Now coming to the averment of defendant no. 2 that the suit property is her matrimonial house, the relevant question which needs to be determined by this Court is if the defendant no.2 has the right to reside in the suit property on the ground that it is her matrimonial home/shared household.
CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 18 of 35
39. Before I move on to decide this aspect, it is pertinent to note that the Civil court derives its power to decide on this aspect from Section 26(1) of the Domestic Violence Act, which provides as follows-
"Relief in other suits and legal proceedings. --
(1) Any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court, family court or a criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act."
40. The averment of the defendant no.2 regarding her right to reside in the suit property, is the most significant question in this suit. Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) reads as under-
"17. Right to reside in a shared household. --
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. (2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law."
CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 19 of 35
41. Regarding this, it is important to refer to the case of Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 841, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court has held that to prove that a daughter in law has a right to reside in shared household as per section 17 and 19, apart from proving that the suit property is in fact a shared household, she needs to prove the following: (Para 100, 103& 104)-
i. That she is an aggrieved person, i.e., an act of domestic violence has been committed against her (only an aggrieved person can file an application under section 12 of DV act).
ii. That the act of domestic violence has been committed by the respondent (respondent is the one against whom she has claimed some relief).
iii. That she has been living in a domestic relationship with the respondent, i.e., she has not been living merely as a licensee.
Only when all these three pre-requisites are fulfilled can she claim a right to reside in the shared household.
42. Thereafter, in the latest case of Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi, 12 May 2022, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 735, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that-
CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 20 of 35 "While Section 19 deals with a multitude of directions or orders which may be passed against the respondent vis-à-vis the shared household in favour of an aggrieved person, Section 17 confers a right on every woman in a domestic relationship to reside in the shared household irrespective of whether she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. This right to reside in a shared household which is conferred on every woman in a domestic relationship is a vital and significant right. It is an affirmation of the right of every woman in a domestic relationship to reside in a shared household. Sub-Section (2) Section 17 protects an aggrieved person from being evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law. The distinction between Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section (2) of Section 17 is also to be noted. While Sub-Section (2) deals with an aggrieved person which is defined in Section 2
(a) of the D.V. Act in the context of domestic violence, Sub-Section (1) of Section 17 is a right conferred on every woman in a domestic relationship irrespective of whether she is an aggrieved person or not. In other words, every woman in a domestic relationship has a right to CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 21 of 35 reside in the shared household even in the absence of any act of domestic violence by the respondent."
43. Therefore, a reading of both the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, clarifies the position of law, with respect to right of residence of a woman and of an 'aggrieved person' within the contours of definition under Section 2 (a) of the Domestic Violence Act, who inevitably happens to be a woman and who is subjected to domestic violence. While in the judgment of Satish Chandra Ahuja (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has focused on the right to reside of an 'aggrieved person' who has been subjected to domestic violence, within the purview of Section 17 (2) read with Section 19 of the DV Act, in the judgment of Prabha Tyagi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified the difference between Section 17 (1) and Section 17 (2) of the Domestic Violence Act, and reiterated the law under Section 17 (1) of the Act that every woman, who is in a domestic relationship shall have a right to reside in the shared household irrespective of whether she has been subjected to domestic violence or not.
44. Therefore, it is clear that while Section 17(1) affirms the right to residence of all women who are in domestic relationship, Section 17(2) is limited in its scope, in the sense that it protects and affirms the right to residence of CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 22 of 35 an aggrieved person who has been subjected to domestic violence.
45. Now that the scope of right to residence under Section 17 of the Act is clear, the next obvious inquiry is, if the defendant no. 2 falls within the ambit of Section 17 (1) or Section 17 (2). In order to fall within the provision of Section 17 (2) of the DV act, it is upon the defendant no.2 to prove that she is an 'aggrieved person' within the meaning of the Act. To prove the same, the defendant no.2 has to prove that she has been a victim of domestic violence. The defendant no.2, in the Written statement has asserted that she has filed a complaint against the plaintiff on the ground of the beatings given by her in laws. To prove this averment, the defendant no. 2 has filed on record the copy of complaint made to SHO PS Bindapur marked as Mark A. However, this complaint cannot be considered as a substantial proof of the averments alleged by the defendant no. 2 against the plaintiff, since the defendant no. 2 has not filed the original stamped copy of the complaint and secondly even if this complaint is relied upon, it does not prove that the offence was actually committed. Therefore, there is nothing substantial to show that the defendant no. 2 has been subjected to domestic violence by the plaintiff. Thus, she cannot be said to be an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of the Domestic Violence Act.
CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 23 of 35
46. Now, the next question is if the defendant no.2 falls within the purview of Section 17(1) of the Act. Section 17(1) provides that it is the right of every woman in a domestic relationship to reside in a shared household.
47. To determine if the defendant no.2 was in a domestic relationship and living in a shared household, it is important to read two definitions as given under the Domestic Violence Act, which are as follows: -
"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;
"shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 24 of 35 and includes 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.
48. In the Satish Chander Ahuja (Supra) case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, gave a wider meaning to the word 'shared household'. The Hon'ble Apex Court divided the definition under section 2(s) into two parts and held that the first condition to be fulfilled for a shared household is that person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship. For the second part of the definition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
i. it is not requirement of law that aggrieved person may either own the premises jointly or singly or by tenanting it jointly or singly;
ii. the household may belong to a 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; and iii. the shared household may either be owned or tenanted by the respondent singly or jointly.
CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 25 of 35
49. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that that the defendants, after their marriage started residing in the suit property. Thus, there is no doubt that the property in question was a shared household and the defendant no.2 was residing there in domestic relationship with the plaintiff.
50. In view of the same, it can be safely concluded that the defendant no.2 has a right to reside in the suit property in view of Section 17 (1) of the Domestic Violence Act. In view of the discussion in the above paragraphs, issue no.4 is decided in favour of the defendant no.2 and against the plaintiff.
51. However, the next question to be determined by the court is if the defendant no.2's right to reside in the property is an indefeasible right. To answer this, I place reliance upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that-
"We need to observe that the right to residence under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 26 of 35 daughter-in-law. While granting relief both in application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 or in any civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties. The directions issued by High court in paragraph 56 adequately balances the rights of both the parties."
52. Therefore, the quest for justice and the need for balancing the rights of parties does not end here. It has always been the endeavour of courts in such cases of dispute between the mother-in-law and the daughter in law, to balance the rights of both the parties. Needless to say, that the courts have vehemently stressed on the fact that workable solutions need to be found in such cases.
53. In the case of Vinay Varma v. Kanika Pasricha & Another 2019 SCC Online Del 11530, before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the issue was regarding the interpretation and balance between 'The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act)' and 'The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (PSC Act)'. In that case also, similar to the instant case, the suit specifically did not arise out of any proceedings under the DV Act nor under the PSC. Act. It was a civil suit for mandatory injunction, wherein, the relief sought was in effect for eviction of the daughter-in- law. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that-
CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 27 of 35 "The conflict between the rights of the parents and the rights of the daughter-in-law which have arisen out of the DV Act and the PSC Act requires to be resolved. The facts of each case are different as there could be cases where the parents or senior citizens do not wish to permit their son and daughter-in-law to continue in their property due to issues of acrimony and misunderstanding. In such cases also, the provisions of the DV Act may be invoked by the son/daughter-in-law subjecting the parents to enormous suffering and frustration. While the right of residence of the daughter-in-law is to be recognized, the same also needs to be balanced depending upon the facts of each case with the right of the peaceful living of the parents as well."
54. The Hon'ble Delhi Court also laid down guidelines for striking a balance between the two Acts. The Hon'ble High court observed as follows-
"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 CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 28 of 35 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 sons/ 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 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 CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 29 of 35 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.
CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 30 of 35
55. Thus, it is imperative that this Court also balances the right of both the plaintiff and the defendant no.2. The plaintiff has asserted that the defendants i.e son and daughter in law, have been torturing him. Perusal of the complaint dated 24.01.2020 exhibited as Ex. PW1/5 and the newspaper publication wherein the plaintiff has debarred the defendants exhibited as Ex. PW1/4 also prove that the relationship between the parties has been acrimonious since many years. Therefore, the plaintiff ought to be permitted to seek eviction of the defendants.
56. It is also well settled law that the husband has the primary responsibility to provide for the maintenance of his wife. Thus, to balance the rights of both the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2, and keeping in view the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vinay (Supra), an alternate accommodation should be arranged for the defendant no. 2 by her husband i.e defendant no.1.
57. Therefore, the following directions are passed-
a. The defendant no.1 i.e the son of the plaintiff shall make arrangements for an alternate accommodation consisting of one room, toilet and kitchen for the defendant no. 2, in the same locality in which the suit property is located, within a month from the date of this judgment, and shall take care of the rent of CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 31 of 35 such accommodation. He shall deposit the rent in the bank account of the defendant no. 2 on a monthly basis on or before the tenth of every month and b. Upon the said payment being commenced, the defendants shall vacate the suit property i.e first floor of the property No. 157 A, measuring 30 sq. yards, out of khasra no. 18/9, village Matiyala, Colony known as Nanhe Park, Block-B, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi -110059 within a period of three months.
58. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no. 2- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as claimed in prayer clause (B) of the plaint? OPP And Issue no.3- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as claimed in prayer clause (C) of the plaint? OPP
59. Qua issue no.2, the plaintiff has sought the relief that defendants be restrained from selling, alienating, transferring, gifting or creating any third party interest in the suit property. Perusal of the plaint shows that though CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 32 of 35 the plaintiff has asserted that she has been harassed and tortured by the defendants, there is no specific averment or document to prove that the defendants have intentions to create third party interest in the suit property. Therefore, in the absence of any material available on record to prove the averments of the plaintiff, the relief of permanent injunction sought vide issue no. 2 cannot be granted.
60. Accordingly, issue no.2 is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
61. Qua issue no.3, the plaintiff has sought the relief that the defendants be restrained from creating hindrance in the plaintiff's peaceful use and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff has asserted that the defendants have threatened that they will dispossess the plaintiff from the property in question. There are multiple averments by the plaintiff that the defendants have been harassing, torturing and abusing the plaintiff and her family. The complaint filed by the plaintiff exhibited as Ex. PW1/5, also shows that the relationship between the parties was not good and the plaintiff has complained about the conduct of the defendants alleging that she was being continuously disturbed and abused by the defendants.
62. However, it is an admitted fact that at present the defendants are in the possession of the suit property i.e. the first floor of the property in question. Therefore, once the defendants are in possession of the suit property, a relief of CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 33 of 35 injunction that the defendants should be restrained from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment in the suit property is pre-mature and cannot be granted at this stage, since one of the basic requirements of grant of relief of permanent injunction is that the party seeking the injunction should be in possession of the property.
63. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to discharge her onus to prove issue no. 3 in her favour. Accordingly, issue no.3 stands decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
RELIEF:-
64. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings given in the above issues, documents placed on record and evidence led, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed.
65. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction regarding which the following directions are passed-
a. The defendant no.1 i.e the son of the plaintiff shall make arrangements for an alternate accommodation consisting of one room, toilet and kitchen for the defendant no. 2, in the same locality in which the suit property is located, within a month from the date of this judgment, and shall take care of the rent of CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 34 of 35 such accommodation. He shall deposit the rent in the bank account of the defendant no. 2 on a monthly basis on or before the tenth of every month and b. Upon the said payment being commenced, the defendants shall vacate the suit property i.e first floor of the property No. 157 A, measuring 30 sq. yards, out of khasra no. 18/9, village Matiyala, Colony known as Nanhe Park, Block-B, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi -110059 within a period of three months.
66. The Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
67. File be consigned to record room after due Digitally signed compliance. by CHITRANSHI CHITRANSHI ARORA ARORA Date:
2024.11.06 16:29:50 +0530 Announced in open court (Chitranshi Arora) on 06.11.2024 CJ-03/South -West Dwarka, Delhi.
CS SCJ 840/20 MUNNI DEVI VS AJAY @ AMIT AND ANR, Page no. 35 of 35