Delhi District Court
Ajay Chadha vs Moondeep Batra on 14 May, 2026
Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CA NO.:- 125/2023
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-003187-2023
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Ajay Chadha
S/o Sh. Rampal Chadha
R/o Plot No.37, 1st Floor,
Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi-110027 .... Appellant
VERSUS
Moondeep Batra
W/o Ajay Chadha
R/o House No.FE-37,
Ground Floor, Shivaji Enclave,
New Delhi-110027
.... Respondent
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.14
16:40:39
+0530
CA No. 125/2023 Page No.1 of 29
Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra
Date of institution of the appeal : 13/04/2023
Date on which judgment was reserved : 01/04/2026
Date of judgment : 14/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon appeal under section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "DV Act") filed by the appellant against the order dated 03/04/2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned order') passed by Ms. Neetika Kapoor, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, (Mahila Court-01), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MC No. 12/2020 titled as "Moondeep Batra Vs. Ajay Chadha & Ors."
In the present appeal, the appellant has prayed to call the record of Ld. Trial Court and to allow the present appeal and to set-aside the impugned order dated 03/04/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present appeal as stated in the present appeal are that the appellant has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 03/04/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby the application u/s. 19 DV Act of the complainant/petitioner (respondent herein) was allowed. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.14 16:40:50 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.2 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra Respondent is the wife of the appellant and this is the second marriage of the respondent. First marriage of the respondent was solemnized with her first husband Sh. Deepak Singh on 04/08/2002, however, the said first marriage of the respondent was dissolved vide judgment dated 01/05/2007 passed by the Court of Sh. K.C. Puri, Ld. District Judge, Amritsar in HMA Case No.232/2006. One child namely Nishchay was born out of the first marriage of the respondent and he is in the custody of the respondent. Second marriage of the respondent was solemnized with the appellant on 08/03/2013 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi. One child, namely Yatish Chadha was born out of the second marriage of the respondent on 18/07/2016. Respondent has alleged that the child Nishchay was adopted by the appellant and she has placed on record an adoption deed for the same but the said adoption deed is not valid as the same was made by the respondent by fraudulent means without written consent/ approval of Deepak Singh, biological father of Nishchay. Hence, the appellant is only the step father of the child and legally not bound for the maintenance and upbringing of Nishchay. After the marriage, both the parties resided at the matrimonial house i.e. Plot No.37, Shivaji Enclave, Delhi-110027 (hereinafter referred to as 'shared household') till 05/04/2022 and all the expenses were borne by the appellant, however, due to matrimonial dispute, the respondent had left the matrimonial house of the appellant along with both children on 05/04/2022 and started residing separately at her parental house. Appellant was continuously residing at his self acquired property at Plot No.37, Shivaji Enclave, Delhi-110027 because of his posting at Delhi Office of NTPC till April 2022, Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.14 16:40:57 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.3 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra however, due to mandate of the employer, the appellant got temporarily transferred to the project site at Jharkhand due to which, he was constrained to temporarily moved to Jharkhand. However, the appellant used to come at his above said Delhi house whenever he came to Delhi from his project site at Jharkhand. After about 8 years of marriage, the respondent had filed false and frivolous complaint case no. MC No.12/2020 u/s. 12 DV Act against the appellant and his parents on the basis of false and concocted allegations. Respondent had also filed various false and frivolous police complaints against the appellant to implicate him in false criminal cases to harass him. Pursuant to false police complaints, FIR No.396/2022 u/s. 325/323/506 IPC PS Khyala and FIR No.715/2022 u/s. 498-A/406 IPC PS Khyala were got registered. Respondent had also filed Criminal Complaint No.818/2022 u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR u/s. 307 IPC and same is pending. Thereafter, the respondent had filed W.P.(CRL) No.1262/2022 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 27/05/2022. Respondent had also filed the complaint against the appellant before the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities under The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 vide her email dated 21/05/2022. On 16/07/2022, the respondent had admitted before the Ld. Trial Court that she is co-owner to the extent of 50% qua the property in Amritsar. Apart from this, the respondent is also having share in House No.89, Ground Floor, Block-F, Sudarshan Park, Landmark Near Valmiki Mandir, Delhi-110015. Electricity bill of the said house at Delhi was in the name of the respondent, however, later-on she got recorded Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.14
16:41:04
+0530
CA No. 125/2023 Page No.4 of 29
Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra
the name of her mother in the Electricity Bill in the year 2022 just to mislead the Ld. Trial Court. After conducting chamber hearing by the Ld. Trial Court on 30/07/2022, the respondent was agreed to find rental accommodation as per needs and requirements as well as per status of both the parties. Vide order dated 03/04/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, the respondent was given right to reside in the shared household alongwith her both children by ignoring various crucial facts including acute strained and bitter relationship between the appellant and respondent because it is very difficult for them to reside together under the same roof peacefully, ignoring reasonable apprehension of the appellant to implicate him in further false cases/ litigations by the respondent because of the past record of the respondent. Alternate remedy as provided u/s. 19(1)(f) DV Act is/was the right remedy to be provided to the respondent considering the acute strained and bitter relationship between the parties as the appellant never refused to pay rent to the respondent for alternate accommodation and in-fact, he filed separate affidavit before the Ld. Trial Court to undertake the responsibility of paying rent as per affidavit, in case any alternate accommodation is provided to the respondent. Thereafter, the appellant got information from his neighbours that on 04/04/2023, the respondent and her elder son Nishchay broke and cut the central lock of the main entrance gate of the said shared household by gas welding and welded the new lock at the main entrance gate of the said shared household without any direction passed by the Ld. Trial Court in this regard. This clearly shows the criminal mindset and conduct of the respondent to harass the appellant.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.14
16:41:11
+0530
CA No. 125/2023 Page No.5 of 29
Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra
3. Appellant has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, as mentioned in the present appeal.
Grounds of appeal- Impugned order suffers from material irregularities and same is perverse and against the well settled provisions of law. Impugned order has been passed without appreciating the facts of the case in proper perspective and same is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Impugned order is bad in law and contrary to the facts on record and same has been passed mechanically. Ld. Trial Court has not passed speaking order as it has not considered the material facts and documents on record. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that due to acute bitterness in the mind of the respondent against the appellant, the respondent has filed various false criminal complaints against the appellant. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate about the facts in the application dated 07/06/2022 showing apprehension about her life from the appellant and in Writ Petition filed by her before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that due to prevailing acute strained and bitter relationship between the parties, Ld. Trial Court time to time passed orders for return of the respondent's clothes, etc. and was not in favour of her residing with the appellant at shared household under the same roof and was exploring options for providing alternate accommodation/rental amount to the respondent. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that due to prevailing acute strained and bitter relationship between the parties, on 01/10/2022, Ld. Trial Court had permitted the respondent to enter the shared household in order to take her belongings in the presence of police officers only but was not in favour of her residing with the appellant at Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.14 16:41:20 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.6 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra shared household under the same roof and she has already taken her children and articles. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate about the reasonable apprehension of the appellant to implicate him in further false cases/litigations by the respondent because of the past record of the respondent. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the alternate remedy as provided u/s. 19(1)(f) DV Act for dealing with such situation of acute strained and bitter relationship between the parties. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly allowed the first son (Nishchay) of the respondent to reside in the shared household without dealing with issue of invalidity of the alleged adoption deed. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that the appellant is only the step-father of the child and not legally bound for the maintenance and upbringing of the first child (Nishchay) of the respondent. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate about the admission made by the respondent on 16/07/2022 before it with respect to her co-ownership to the extent 50% qua the property in Amritsar (i.e. Three floors 250 Sq. Yd. property at 505, Shubham Enclave, Amritsar, Punjab) and she is not homeless. Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the affidavit filed by the appellant to undertake the responsibility of paying rent as per the affidavit in case any alternate accommodation is provided to the respondent. Ld. Trial Court has wrongly relied upon the electricity bills of the shared household furnished by the respondent. Appellant was continuously residing at Plot No.37, Shivaji Enclave, Delhi-110027 because of his posting at Delhi Office of NTPC till April 2022. However, due to mandate of the employer, the appellant got transferred to the project site at Jharkhand, due to which, he was constrained to temporarily moved to Jharkhand. Ld. Trial Court Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.14 16:41:27 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.7 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra has wrongly considered the submission of the respondent without any proof of CCTV cameras installed at the shared household that she had always resided there and can still reside by ensuring safety as CCTV cameras are installed there. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the appellant was and still under constant threat from the respondent, her parents and Nischay, as the parents of the respondent purposefully with malafide intention have taken house on rent just 100 meters away in the same locality of the appellant to put constant watch upon the whereabouts of the appellant. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that the respondent had come with unclean hands. If the impugned order is not set-aside, the same will cause irreparable damage to the appellant as the respondent will not allow the appellant to reside in the shared household peacefully because of acute bitterness in the mind of the respondent against the appellant, which can be inferred from the past record of the respondent about filing of various false criminal complaints by her against the appellant. Impugned order is against the settled principles of law and facts. Impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures. Impugned order is a result of non-application of judicial mind and based on hyper-technical considerations. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the true and genuine facts and circumstances of the case placed by the appellant. Impugned order is erroneous.
4. Respondent has contested the present appeal of the appellant by filing detailed reply, wherein preliminary objections have been taken by the respondent that the appeal is not maintainable because there is no Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date: SHANKAR 2026.05.14 16:41:35 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.8 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra cogent/plausible reason/ground for setting-aside the impugned order. Appellant cannot be allowed to misuse the legal machinery as per his whims and fancies.
Appeal of the appellant has become infructuous because the respondent has already entered in the premises in question and is residing therein. Appellant has not come to this Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the Court. Appellant has intentionally and deliberately mislead the Court by filing false and frivolous appeal. Appellant has raised several false pleas in the present appeal, which have no relevance for the present appeal and the impugned order is not relating to such points. Appellant is unnecessarily wasting the precious time of the Court. Impugned order has been passed by the Ld. Trial Court after considering the facts, law and documents with due application of mind in a right perspective manner. There is no illegality and irregularity in the impugned order. Present appeal has been filed with malafide intentions whereas the impugned order is reasonable, speaking and justified. Appellant is not complying the orders passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Appellant did not comply the orders in respect of payments. Appellant is under legal obligation to pay the educational expenses of elder son.
On merits, the para-wise reply has been given by the respondent to the present appeal of the appellant by denying the allegations/contentions of the appellant and the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the present appeal with cost.
5. This Court heard the arguments on the present appeal advanced Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.14 16:41:42 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.9 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra by Ld. Counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. counsel for the appellant that impugned order is liable to be set-aside on the grounds, as mentioned in the present appeal. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned order in accordance with law and there is no merits in the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions has relied upon the following case laws:-
(a) Rajnesh V. Neha {(2021) 2 SCC 324}
(b) Satish Chander Ahuja V. Sneha Ahuja {(2020) 12 SCR 189}
(c) Navneet Arora V. Surender Kaur & Ors. {(FAO (OS) 196/2014 decided
by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 10/09/2014} Counsel for the respondent in support of her contentions has relied upon the following case laws:-
(a) Samir Vidyasagar Bhardwaj V. Nandita Samir Bhardwaj {(2017) 14 SCC 583}
(b) S.Vanitha V. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors.
{(2021) 15 SCC 730}
(c) Satish Chander Ahuja V. Sneha Ahuja {(2020) 12 SCR 189}
6. By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.14 16:41:49 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.10 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra order dated 03/04/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned order is reproduced as under:-
" 03.04.2023 Present: Petitioner in person.
None for respondent.
1 Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application u/s 19 of PWDV Act 2005, moved on behalf of applicant/ petitioner seeking right to residence in the shared household and directions to respondent to not to dispossess/ disturb her and her children from the shared household.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that she got married to respondent no.1 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 08.03.2023 and after marriage, they cohabited and lived together at H.No. 37, Shivaji Enclave, Near Rajouri Garden, New Delhi (herein after referred to as shared household) and one child namely, Yatish Chadha, was born out of the said wedlock. Another child namely Nishchay Chadha, from the first marriage of petitioner, was also duly adopted by respondent subsequent to their marriage. It is alleged that soon after their marriage, behavior of the respondent became very abusive and November 2015 onwards, respondent started ill treating and assaulting the petitioner by subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty. It is alleged that in the month of December 2015 respondent abused the petitioner by using filthy language and made repeated demands for dowry. It is further alleged that on many occasions respondent threatened to throw the petitioner out of her shared household by selling the property. It is alleged that on 08.11.2019 respondent threw all the clothes of petitioner out of the almirah and pushed her out of her shared household and on 19.11.2019 sent her a legal Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.14
16:41:56
+0530
CA No. 125/2023 Page No.11 of 29
Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra
notice containing false and frivolous allegations and accused the petitioner of having illicit relationship with someone else. It is further alleged that on 23.11.2019 respondent came drunk and on a minor quarrel started beating the petitioner mercilessly and tried to push her out of her home. It is further alleged that matrimonial relationship between the parties were strained and gradually respondent stopped paying personal and household expenses of the petitioner and her children. It is further submitted by petitioner that, respondent has now vacated the said property and is at present not residing in the said premises and as she is residing with her parents facing difficulty due to lack of space, she be permitted to enter the shared household with her children and prayed that she be not dispossessed from the same.
3 The said application has been resisted by the respondent on the ground that till 05.04.2022 parties resided together in the shared household and all expenses were borne by the respondent, however, petitioner falsely implicated him in following criminal cases with malafide intention i.e 1. Charges for attempt to murder u/s 307 IPC (one application u/s 156 (3) CrPC filed in the Court seeking registration of FIR u/s 307 IPC), 2. FIR no. 396/22 registered in PS Khyala u/s 325/323/506 IPC and 3. FIR No. 715/22 registered in PS Khyala u/s 498A/406 IPC. It is further argued that the petitioner be not permitted to enter the shared household as there is a possibility that she will falsely implicate the respondent and his family in several other false cases by misusing the law. An affidavit containing particulars of alternate accommodations which respondent is willing to offer to petitioner on rent filed. Copy supplied.
4. Arguments heard. Case file perused.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.14
16:42:02
+0530
CA No. 125/2023 Page No.12 of 29
Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra
5. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner drew the attention of court to the fact that shared household is not in possession of either respondent or his parents and he is currently residing with friends. Certain electricity bills showing monthly electricity charges of Rs.0., Rs.10/- etc furnished by Ld. Counsel for petitioner in support of her submission.
6 On query, respondent admitted to be not residing at the said property but stated to have vacated the same as the petitioner had created ruckus causing defamation / embarrassment in his locality. It is further submitted by the respondent that as he is willing to offer alternate accommodation to the petitioner, petitioner be not permitted to enter the shared household as that would lead to several new litigations.
7 During the course of arguments, petitioner was asked that why she wanted to go to the place where she is harassed by her in laws and husband and why she could not prefer to reside in alternate accommodation, upon which, petitioner stated that she had always resided there and can still reside by ensuring safety as CCTV cameras are installed there. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has vehemently argued that right to residence be provided in the matrimonial house /shared household and placed the reliance on the observations made in case titled "Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja, AIR 2020 SC 2483 dated 15.10.2020".
8 Considering the facts and circumstances that it is not in dispute that petitioner and respondent resided in the aforestated premises after their marriage and said house is their shared household / matrimonial home and that respondent has admitted that, at present, he is not residing in Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.14 16:42:21 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.13 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra the said premises, this Court is of the opinion that no loss / damage / injury / inconvenience will be caused to either of the parties in case petitioner is allowed to enter the shared household and reside with her children therein. The argument of the respondent that in case petitioner enters the shared household she will implicate him in false cases cannot be considered as a valid ground to deny petitioner her right to residence as respondent himself is not residing in the shared household at present. Accordingly, prayer of petitioner is allowed and petitioner is given right to reside in the shared household with both her children. It is, however, clarified that respondent is not debarred or restrained from entering and residing in the shared household with the petitioner and children subject to the condition that he shall at no point disturb or dispossess the petitioner and children. Respondent is further directed to pay the electricity and water bill for the premises.
9 Respondent is also directed not to commit any act of domestic violence / cruelty / harassment on the petitioner or children in any manner whatsoever.
10 Application stands disposed of.
11 Copy of order be given Dasti to parties.
(ΝΕΕΤΙΚΑ ΚΑPOOR) MM, (MAHILA COURT-01) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI 03.04.2023"
7. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.14 16:42:27 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.14 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court.
(a) Complainant/petitioner (respondent herein) had filed the complaint/ petition u/s. 12 with prayers u/s. 18/19/20/22 DV Act against the respondent no.1 (appellant herein) and other respondents and the aforesaid complaint/petition u/s. 12 & 18 to 22 DV Act is pending before the Ld. Trial Court.
In the aforesaid complaint/ petition u/s. 12 & 18 to 22 DV Act of the complainant/petitioner, it is mentioned that marriage of the complainant/petitioner Moondeep Batra was solemnized with the respondent Ajay Chadha on 08/03/2013 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in Delhi and it was the second marriage of the complainant/petitioner. It is also mentioned that after the marriage, complainant/petitioner and respondent cohabited and lived together at H.No. 37, Shivaji Enclave, near Rajouri Garden. It is also mentioned that out of the said wedlock, one child namely Yatish Chadha was born. It is also mentioned that from the first marriage of the complainant/petitioner, she is having one child namely Nischay Chadha and he is residing with the complainant/petitioner and respondents. It is also mentioned that Nischay Chadha was adopted by the respondent himself. It is also mentioned that the complainant/petitioner was subjected to mental as well as physical torture/cruelty and she was harassed and ill treated with cruelty by the respondents. It is also mentioned that the respondent has threatened the complainant/petitioner to throw her and her children from the matrimonial house and to sell the same. It is also mentioned that complainant/petitioner was Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.14 16:42:34 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.15 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra subjected to domestic violence by the respondents and she is an aggrieved person as per DV Act.
(b) Domestic Incident Report was called from the Protection Officer and same was filed before the Ld. Trial Court.
(c) Respondent no.1 has contested the aforesaid complaint/petition of the complainant/petitioner by filing written statements/reply, wherein he denied the contents/allegations of the complaint/petition and prayed for dismissal of the complaint/petition of the complainant/petitioner.
(d) Rejoinder to the written statement/reply was filed by the complainant/petitioner, wherein she denied the contents of the written statement/reply and re-iterated the contents of her complaint/petition.
(e) Vide order dated 10/04/2022 passed by Ld. Trial Court, ad-interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- was granted to the complainant/petitioner for sustenance of child and petitioner.
(f) In the said case, affidavits of assets, income and expenditure were filed by the complainant/petitioner and respondent no.1.
(g) Vide order dated 03/04/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, application u/s 19 DV Act of the complainant/petitioner was allowed.
Now, the matter is fixed before the Ld. Trial Court for 03/08/2026.
8. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention the relevant Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.14 16:42:40 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.16 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra provisions of DV Act.
Section 2 (a)- "aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;
Section 2 (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;
Section 2 (q)- "respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:
Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner;
Section 2 (s)- "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 house hold 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 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;
Section 3- Definition of domestic violence.--For the purposes Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.14
16:42:46
+0530
CA No. 125/2023 Page No.17 of 29
Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra
of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it--
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
Explanation I.--For the purposes of this section,--
(i) "physical abuse" means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;
(ii) "sexual abuse" includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;
(iii) "verbal and emotional abuse" includes--
(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and
(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested;
(iv) "economic abuse" includes--
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.14 16:42:53 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.18 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, house hold necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared house hold and maintenance;
(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.
Explanation II.--For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes "domestic violence" under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.
Section 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.
Section 19- Residence orders--(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.14 16:43:00 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.19 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra pass a residence order--
(a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household;
(b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household;
(c) restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides;
(d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared household or encumbering the same;
(e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or
(f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require:
Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman.
(2) The Magistrate may impose any additional conditions or pass any other direction which he may deem reasonably necessary to protect or to provide for the safety of the aggrieved person or any child of such aggrieved person. (3) The Magistrate may require from the respondent to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for preventing the commission of domestic violence.
(4) An order under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be an order under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and shall be dealt with accordingly. (5) While passing an order under sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the court may also pass an order directing the officer in charge of the nearest police station to give protection to the aggrieved person or to assist her or the person Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.14 16:43:05 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.20 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra making an application on her behalf in the implementation of the order.
(6) While making an order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may impose on the respondent obligations relating to the discharge of rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties. (7) The Magistrate may direct the officer in-charge of the police station in whose jurisdiction the Magistrate has been approached to assist in the implementation of the protection order.
(8) The Magistrate may direct the respondent to return to the possession of the aggrieved person her stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which she is entitled to.
9. Law relating to shared household has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Satish Chander Ahuja V. Sneha Ahuja {(2020) 12 SCR 189}" that :-
"........ Now, reverting back to the definition of Section 2(s), the definition can be divided in two parts, first, which follows the word "means" and second which follows the word "includes".
The second part which follows "includes" can be further sub- divided in two parts. The first part reads "shared household means a household where the person aggrieved has lived or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent". Thus, first condition to be fulfilled for a shared household is that person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship. The second part sub- divided in two parts is- (a) includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent and 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 and Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.14 16:43:12 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.21 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra
(b)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. In the above definition, two expressions, namely, "aggrieved person" and "respondent" have occurred. From the above definition, 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...."
Law relating to maintenance as well as other provisions of D.V. Act has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Rajnesh V. Neha" {(2021) 2 SCC 324} and it was held that :-
"Section 17 of the D.V. Act grants an aggrieved woman the right to live in the "shared household". Section 2(s) defines "shared household" to include the household where the aggrieved woman lived at any stage of the domestic relationship; or the household owned and rented jointly or singly by both, or singly by either of the spouses; or a joint family house, of which the respondent is a member.
The right of a woman to reside in a "shared household"
defined under Section 2(s) entitles the aggrieved woman for right of residence in the shared household, irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same. This Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v Sneha Ahuja (supra) held that "shared household" referred to in Section 2(s) is the shared household of the aggrieved person where she was living at the time when the Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date: SHANKAR 2026.05.14 16:43:18 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.22 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra application was filed, or at any stage lived in a domestic relationship. The living of the aggrieved woman in the shared household must have a degree of permanence. A mere fleeting or casual living at different places would not constitute a "shared household". It is important to consider the intention of the parties, nature of living, and nature of the household, to determine whether the premises is a "shared household". Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of the D.V. Act entitles a woman to the right of residence in a shared household, irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same. There is no requirement of law that the husband should be a member of the joint family, or that the household must belong to the joint family, in which he or the aggrieved woman has any right, title or interest. The shared household may not necessarily be owned or tenanted by the husband singly or jointly.
Section 19 (1)(f) of the D.V. Act provides that the Magistrate may pass a residence order inter alia directing the respondent to secure the same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved woman as enjoyed by her in the shared household. While passing such an order, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay the rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties."
10. In the complaint/petition u/s. 12 & 18 to 22 DV Act, it is alleged by the complainant/petitioner that she was subjected to mental as well as physical torture/ cruelty by the appellant and she was harassed and ill-treated by her husband and she was subjected to domestic violence by her husband (appellant). However, the allegations of domestic violence have been denied by the appellant.
Solemnization of marriage between the appellant (husband) and Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.14 16:43:26 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.23 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra respondent (wife) is not disputed. It is also not disputed that it was the second marriage of the respondent and out of the said wedlock of appellant and respondent, they are having one minor son namely Yatish Chadha. It is also not disputed that out of the first marriage, respondent is having one son namely Nischay Chadha. It is also not disputed that at present, the respondent and her both sons are residing in the shared household. It is also not disputed that the appellant and respondent were in domestic relationship. It is also not disputed that the appellant and respondent resided in the matrimonial home/shared household after their marriage.
11. It is well settled law that at initial stage, only prima-facie case has to be seen. Prima-facie on the basis of pleadings of the complainant/ petitioner (wife) and Domestic Incident Report filed by the Protection Officer, it can be presumed that the appellant subjected the respondent (wife) to domestic violence.
12. It is mentioned by the appellant in the present appeal that after the marriage, the respondent resided in the shared household till 05/04/2022 and thereafter, she left alongwith her both children. The complaint/petition u/s. 12 & 18 to 22 DV Act was filed by the complainant/petitioner on 06/01/2020. It is admitted fact that at the time of filing the aforesaid complaint/petition u/s. 12 & 18 to 22 DV Act, the complainant/ petitioner (respondent herein) and her both children were residing in the shared household. By way of impugned order, Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.14 16:43:32 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.24 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra application u/s 19 DV Act of the complainant/petitioner (respondent herein) was allowed and complainant/petitioner was given right to reside in the shared household with her both children. Admittedly, at present, respondent and her both children are residing in the shared household.
Before proceeding further, this Court shall discuss as to whether the property bearing Plot No.37, Shivaji Enclave, Delhi-110027 is shared household or not. It is mentioned by the appellant in the present appeal that aforesaid property is his self acquired property. Appellant in his affidavit of assets, income and expenditure filed before the Ld. Trial Court has also mentioned the aforesaid property as his self acquired property. Solemnization of marriage between the appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) is not disputed. It is not disputed that the appellant and respondent were in domestic relationship and they resided in the matrimonial home i.e. aforesaid property after their marriage. Hence, the aforesaid property bearing Plot No.37, Shivaji Enclave, Delhi-110027 is shared household within the meaning of Section 2(s) DV Act.
13. It is the contention of the appellant that the appellant has apprehension that in case, the appellant enters in the shared household, the respondent may implicate him in false cases. Appellant in the present appeal has admitted the fact that at present, he is not residing in the shared household. The aforesaid contention/apprehension of the appellant is not tenable as appellant is stated to be not residing in the shared household. Merely on the basis of apprehension of the appellant, the respondent cannot be denied of her right to Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.14 16:43:38 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.25 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra reside in the shared household.
By way of impugned order, Ld. Trial Court has not adjudicate upon the title/ownership/proprietary rights in respect of the shared household. By way of impugned order, Ld. Trial Court has not conferred any ownership/proprietary rights upon the respondent in respect of shared household. Even otherwise, the respondent has not disputed the title/ownership of the appellant in respect of aforesaid property. In the impugned order, Ld. Trial Court has not restrained the appellant to enter and reside in his aforesaid house i.e. shared household.
14. It is the contention of the appellant that the respondent is co-
owner to the extent of 50% in property No. 505, Shubham Enclave, Amritsar, Punjab and the respondent is also having share in House No.89, Ground Floor, Block-F, Sudarshan Park, Landmark Near Valmiki Mandir, Delhi-110015.
In the present appeal, the respondent had filed her affidavit in respect of her immovable properties. In the aforesaid affidavit, it is mentioned that the respondent is not the owner of any property in Delhi and property situated in Sudarshan Park was owned by her mother and same was sold on 03/06/2025. It is also mentioned in the aforesaid affidavit that under construction property situated in Amritsar, Punjab was purchased out of funds paid solely by her parents and same is held in the name of her mother and respondent has been added as joint owner in the said under construction property. Respondent in her affidavit of assets, income and expenditure has mentioned that she is joint owner Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.14 16:43:45 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.26 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra of Amritsar, Punjab property and the said property is in her name and her mother for which, payment was made by her parents. Appellant has not filed any ownership document to show that the respondent is the co-owner of property bearing House No.89, Ground Floor, Block-F, Sudarshan Park, Landmark Near Valmiki Mandir, Delhi-110015. As per affidavit of assets, income and expenditure dated 09/12/2020 filed by the respondent before the Ld. Trial Court, her both children were studying in Delhi. Merely because the respondent has property in Punjab, she cannot be denied her right to reside in the shared household in view of the fact that the appellant is not residing in the shared household and children of the respondent studying in Delhi. Hence, the aforesaid contention of the appellant is not tenable in this regard.
15. It is the contention of the appellant that alternate accommodation as prescribed in Section 19 (1) (f) DV Act is/was the right remedy to be provided to the respondent. As per Section 19 (1) (f) DV Act, Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require. Power u/s 19 (1) (f) DV Act is discretionary power. It is admitted fact that at present, respondent and her both children are residing in the shared household. It is also admitted fact that the appellant is not residing in the shared household. Children of the respondent stated to be studying in Delhi. In view of the same, there is no reason for Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.14 16:43:51 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.27 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra providing the alternate accommodation to the respondent and her both children. Hence, the aforesaid contention of the appellant is not tenable in this regard.
16. By way of present appeal, the appellant has also challenged the validity of adoption deed of Nischay. Copy of said adoption deed was filed before the Ld. Trial Court. In the present appeal, execution of aforesaid adoption deed has not been denied/disputed by the appellant. The factum regarding validity of aforesaid adoption deed of Nischay was not in issue in the impugned order. Hence, the aforesaid contention of the appellant is not tenable in this regard.
17. It is well settled law that the Appellate Court will usually not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Ld. Trial Court and the Appellate Court will interfere only, if it is found that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or if it is found that the Court has ignored settled principles of law.
On perusal of impugned order, this Court is of the considered opinion that all the parameters for exercising the power/discretion u/s 19 DV Act have been duly dealt with by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order. All the points and contentions of both the parties were duly dealt with by Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order.
There is nothing on the record to show that the Ld. Trial Court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously and perversely. There is also Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.14 16:43:58 +0530 CA No. 125/2023 Page No.28 of 29 Ajay Chadha Vs. Moondeep Batra nothing on the record to show that the Ld. Trial Court has ignored the settled principles of law while exercising the power/discretion u/s 19 DV Act. There is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
18. There is no dispute regarding the propositions laid down in the case laws relied upon by counsel for the appellant, however, the same are no help of the appellant.
19. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the aforesaid case laws, this Court is held that there is no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, the present appeal u/s. 29 DV Act of the appellant is dismissed. No order as to costs. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of this judgment. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
Announced in the open Court SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.14
on 14/05/2026 16:44:04
+0530
(VIJAY SHANKAR)
ASJ-04 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CA No. 125/2023 Page No.29 of 29