Delhi District Court
Dr Bindu Suri vs Uditi Wadhwa on 13 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUL VARMA, ASJ-04 AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) SOUTH-EAST: SAKET COURTS:
NEW DELHI
CA 322/2023
Dr Bindu Suri
W/o Sh Sanjay Suri
R/o -N-26 2nd & 3rd Floor
Greater Kailash-I
New Delhi
..........Appellant
Vs
Ms Uditi Wadhwa
W/o Sh Abhishek Suri
R/o -N-26 2nd & 3rd Floor
Greater Kailash-I
New Delhi
..........Respondent
Instituted on :21.10.2023
Argued on :09.12.2023
Decided on :13.12.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, this Court shall adjudicate upon the Criminal Appeal filed by appellant, seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 18.10.2023 passed by Ld. MM/Mahila Court/SED, Saket Courts, whereby the Ld. Trial Court passed an ex-parte interim order in favour of respondent/wife, directing inter alia that she be not dispossessed from the matrimonial home by the her husband and his family members.
CA 322/2023 Dr Bindu Suri Vs Uditi Wadhwa Page No. 1/13
IMPUGNED ORDER FACTS
2. The facts of the case are hereby succinctly recapitulated: It was alleged that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'wife') herein had preferred a complaint u/s 12 of PWDV Act, 2005 ('the Act') before the Ld. Trial Court impleading inter alia the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'mother-in-law')herein. The wife had impleaded her husband, her father-in-law and her brother-in-law as well. On the first date of hearing before the Ld. Trial Court i.e. on 18.10.2023 the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to pass an ex-parte interim order in favour of the wife, and restrained the appellant and other family members from committing domestic violence upon her, and further restrained them from dispossessing the wife from the shared household/matrimonial home at N-26, GK-I, New Delhi. It is this order which has been assailed in the present Criminal appeal.
CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT &RESPONDENT
3. Ms. Rebecca M. John, Ld. Senior Counsel along with Ms. Bahuli Sharma, Ld Counsel for the appellant submitted that the mother- in-law had also, prior in point of time, preferred a petition under the PWDV Act qua the wife, and as such since cross cases were CA 322/2023 Dr Bindu Suri Vs Uditi Wadhwa Page No. 2/13 filed, the Ld Trial Court ought to have heard both sides before passing the impugned order. It was contended that on 18.10.2023 the Ld Trial Court heard the wife only at length, and declined to prepone the case of the mother-in-law, and did not hear her at all. It was submitted that the question of dispossession of the wife did not arise as the wife was not in possession of the premises on the aforementioned date of 18.10.2023. It was contended that the wife had, on her own volition, left the premises of the appellant on 14.10.2023 itself. It was submitted that the parents-in-law ought not to be burdened with the obligation of maintaining their daughter-in-law, in their self-acquired premises, especially when the son/husband has left the said premises and is living in a rented accommodation in the same locality. In this context, it was submitted that the son/husband was residing in S Block, GK-I since 09.10.2023, and not at N-26, GK-I i.e. self-acquired property of the parents-in-law. It was vehemently contended that the wife had left the premises of the in-laws on 14.10.2023 and had joined her husband at the rented accommodation on 10.11.2023. It was vociferously canvassed that the wife is not entitled to insist on residing in a particular premises, as long as an alternate accommodation is provided to her. It was submitted that it is trite law that the wife is not entitled to a right of CA 322/2023 Dr Bindu Suri Vs Uditi Wadhwa Page No. 3/13 residence in the self-acquired property of her parents-in-law. It was thus submitted that the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court be set aside.
4. To fortify her submissions, Ld Counsel for the appellant referred to a litany of judgments:
1. Rangesh Srinivasan Vs. Madhulika Bawa CA No. 45/2023
2. Tezbir Chaudharie Vs. Garima Chaudharie CA No. 205/2023
3. Rashid Malik Vs. Shabna Rashid CA No. 344/2023
4. K. M. Leelavathi Vs. K. M. Sonia Madaiah and Others, 2020 SCC online Kar 861
5. Rangesh Srinivasan Vs. Madhulika Bawa, (2023) 2 HCC (Del) 533
6. Bhanu Kiran Vs. Rahul Khosla and Others, CRR 2485 of 2022 (O & M)
7. Savitri Vs. Govind Singh Rawat, (1985) 4 SCC 337
8. Income Tax Officer Vs. M. K. Mohammrf Kunhi, 1968 SCC Online SC 71
9. MP Vs. Mishrilal (2003) 9 SCC 426
10.Ravneet Kaur Vs. Prithpal Singh Dhingra, 2022 SCC Online DEL 594 Madalsa Sud Vs. Maunicka Makkar and Another, 2021 SCC Online DEL 5217
11.Satish Chander Ahuja v Sneha Ahuja (2021)1 SCC 414
12.Ambika Jain v Ram Prakash Sharma 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11886
13.Vinay Varma v Kanika Parischa 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11530
5. Per contra, Ms Ashima Mandla, Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that the wife was thrown out of the shared household without adverting to the procedure established under law in terms of Section 17 of PWDV Act. It was vociferously submitted that the appellant, with a malafide intention, concealed the purported CA 322/2023 Dr Bindu Suri Vs Uditi Wadhwa Page No. 4/13 rent agreement qua the 2nd and 3rd floor of N-26 GK-I, and a subterfuge was adopted solely to illegally evict the wife. It was thus remonstrated that the appellant did not come to the court with clean hands, and since she withheld a vital document viz. purported rent agreement, she ought to be held guilty of committing fraud upon the court. It was further submitted that under Section 23(2) of the Act, the Ld. Magistrate was bestowed with power to grant ex-parte relief, if the complaint prima facie disclosed an exigency, which it did so in the present case. Thus, it was submitted that no fault can be found with the order of the Ld. Trial Court. To buttress her arguments, Ld Counsel for the respondents placed reliance inter alia on Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh devi (2022) 8 SCC 90, A.V Papayya Sastry & Ors Vs Govt of A.P & Ors (2007) 4 SCC 221 and Ramjas Foundation Vs Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 38
6. Submissions heard. Records perused.
DECISION
7. The foremost contention made on behalf of the wife was that she was dispossessed or evicted from the shared household without following the due process of law, in terms of Section 17 of the Act. It was submitted that the wife was sought to be dispossessed CA 322/2023 Dr Bindu Suri Vs Uditi Wadhwa Page No. 5/13 and evicted on the strength of a notice qua non-payment of arrears of rent of 2nd & 3rd Floor of the shared household, qua a sham rent agreement, between the mother-in-law and her son. It was submitted that no such rent agreement was adduced on record. In rebuttal, on behalf of the mother-in-law, it was contended that the wife left on her own accord on 14.10.2023, with all her belongings. It was further submitted that the mother-in-law had filed a DV petition prior to the one filed by the wife, and the Ld Trial Court did not follow a fair procedure, and heard the wife only and not the mother-in-law. In fact, despite the mother-in-law remonstrating for an early hearing, the Ld Trial Court rejected the plea, and went on to hear the wife only.
8. In this context, it would be pertinent to refer to the WhatsApp chat dated 14.10.2023, sent by the husband to the wife, wherein prima facie an intention is being conveyed that the wife should join the husband in the alternate rented accommodation. Moreover, the wife has nowhere brought to the fore as to where she was residing from 14.10.2023 to 20.10.2023. Even a perusal of the report of the Protection Officer omits to explain the whereabouts of the wife from 14.10.2023 to 21.10.2023. Significantly, there is a legal notice of eviction dated 10.10.2023 CA 322/2023 Dr Bindu Suri Vs Uditi Wadhwa Page No. 6/13 issued by the Advocate of the mother in law to her son and his wife, seeking eviction and handing over a peaceful possession of 2nd and 3rd floor of N-26, GK-I. Whether the sending of eviction notice was a ploy or not, would be adjudged on the touchstone of trial, but for now, the said notice is in existence and, as per the mother in law, it is pursuant to service of the above notice that the son moved out of the said premises. Furthermore, the mother-in- law had filed a DV petition qua the respondent wife prior in point of time, where inter alia a relief of removal of the wife from the premises was sought. Perhaps if the mother-in-law would be heard, then the above narrated facts could have been brought to the notice of the Ld Trial Court. Thus, on this score, this Court concurs with the submissions of Ld Senior Counsel for the mother-in-law that the principles of natural justice viz. audi alteram partem were not followed, especially when it is the case of the appellant that a hearing was sought before the Ld Trial Court, but was denied. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order of the Ld Trial Court deserves to be set aside.
9. Next, adverting to the question of law raised viz. whether the wife has a right to reside in the shared household or not, it would be pertinent to refer to the Full Bench verdict of Hon'ble Supreme CA 322/2023 Dr Bindu Suri Vs Uditi Wadhwa Page No. 7/13 Court in Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC
414. In the said case, a question had arisen for determination as to whether definition of a 'shared household' u/s 2(s) of the Act has to be read to mean that shared household can only be that household which is the household of the joint family and in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share. While affirming the fact that the definition of shared household is clear, and Section 2(s) encapsulates an exhaustive definition, it was inter alia ordained as thus:
"59 From the above definition, the following is clear : (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."
10. It is thus explicit that the earlier view of S.R Batra Vs Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169, that the property which exclusively belongs to father-in-law or the mother-in-law or to both, in which the husband has no right, title or interest, cannot be called a shared household, does not hold the fort any longer. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that the wife has a right of residence in the shared household/property of the parents-in-law irrespective of CA 322/2023 Dr Bindu Suri Vs Uditi Wadhwa Page No. 8/13 the fact whether the said property is self-acquired by the parents- in-law or bequeathed to them as ancestral property. Therefore, in the present case, the wife herein has every right to reside in property N-26, GK-I, New Delhi, as the same falls within the ambit of a shared household.
11.However, in Satish Chander (supra) it was also observed as thus:
"90. Before we close our discussion on Section 2(s), 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 daughter-in-law. While granting relief both in application under Section
12 of the 2005 Act or in any civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties. The directions issued by the High Court [Ambika Jain v. Ram Prakash Sharma, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11886] in para 56 adequately balance the rights of both the parties."
12.Now, therefore, it would be pertinent to refer to the directions of Ambika Jain referred above, wherein it was directed inter alia as thus:
"(iv) While determining as to whether the appellant"s husband or the in-laws bears the responsibility of providing such alternate accommodation to the appellant, if any, the trial Court may be guided by paragraph 46 of the decision in Vinay Verma (supra)"CA 322/2023 Dr Bindu Suri Vs Uditi Wadhwa Page No. 9/13
13.Delving further, into Vinay Varma, certain guidelines were laid down to address the question 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. It was laid down inter alia as thus:
"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 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."
14.Even though the above verdicts were rendered in the quest for striking a balance between the PWDV Act and Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, yet the directions would apply with equal force in the present case, for striking balance between two competing rights is pivotal for the adjudication of this case too.
15.Viewed from another angle, there are a plethora of cases where CA 322/2023 Dr Bindu Suri Vs Uditi Wadhwa Page No. 10/13 the Courts have given primacy to the rights of parents. In this context, it would be apt to refer to the observations made in Rampada Basak & Anr Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors on 23 Jul, 2021, where it was spelt out as thus:
" It is now well settled that the children and their spouses living in the senior citizen's house are at best 'licensees'. Such license would come to an end once the senior citizens are not comfortable with their children and their families."
16. The other judgments relied by Ld Counsel for the appellant also pivot around the proposition of law that there is no vested right in the children to remain in possession of their parent's self-acquired property, especially when the parent's want eviction of their offsprings therefrom. In Vinay Varma vs. Kanika Pasricha & Anr. Or 29 November, 2019, seminal guidelines were laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, one of which reads as thus:
"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 generating income and for their own expenses for daily living."
17. Therefore, it is pellucid that parents-in-law can definitely seek an ouster of a recalcitrant progeny and his family. However, that is not to say that the statutory rights of the wife have to be given a go-by. It thus becomes imperative that a modus vivendi has to be CA 322/2023 Dr Bindu Suri Vs Uditi Wadhwa Page No. 11/13 arrived at, lest the situation turns ugly, as the continued presence of the respondent/wife is ostensibly causing discomfort and alarm in the minds of the parents-in-law. The solution albeit a transient one, lies in removing the root cause, namely separating the two warring factions from the zone of conflict. For the said purpose, grant of alternate accommodation to the wife seems to be step in the right direction. Also, it is an admitted position that the wife has resided with the husband in the alternate rented accommodation for about two weeks. Thus, this would be a classic example where rights of parents in law as well as the wife are balanced, and upheld. Therefore, it is hereby directed that the mother-in-law shall continue to look after the interests of the wife, and shall continue to pay for rent of the alternate accommodation till the pendency of the trial. The other issue raised as to who has come with clean hands or not, would be a matter best left for being adjudicated in the course of a trial.
CONCLUSION
18. Ergo, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the Ld Trial Court, only to the extent of restraining the dispossession of the respondent wife from the shared household by the parents-in- CA 322/2023 Dr Bindu Suri Vs Uditi Wadhwa Page No. 12/13 law /husband, is expunged. The mother in-law shall ensure that the respondent wife be given possession of, and have unhindered access to the alternate accommodation. Rent and other ancillary expenses viz. electricity bills, water bills etc. would be borne by the mother-in-law. Further, the respondent wife is hereby restrained in toto from entering or staying in the shared household/premises at House no N-26,GK-1, New Delhi, subject of course to acquiescence to her ingress thereto by her parents-in- law. Needless to say, the above directions shall be in force only till the matter is finally disposed of by the Ld. Trial Court. It is hereby clarified that the Ld. Trial Court, while finally disposing of the matter, is at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Further, the above order is without prejudice to the rights of parties available under any other law in force.
19.TCR, if any, alongwith copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for necessary information/ compliance.
20.Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
21. Order be uploaded on official website of District Courts.
22.Order be given dasti.
Announced in the open court on 13th December, 2023 (ARUL VARMA) ASJ-04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS) South-East District Saket Courts, New Delhi CA 322/2023 Dr Bindu Suri Vs Uditi Wadhwa Page No. 13/13