Delhi District Court
Ikramuddin vs Ms. Afsana on 17 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer: Sh. Dinesh Kumar, DJS
Suit No.41/2015
Unique ID no. 02406C0024532015
In the matter of:
Ikramuddin, S/o Late Sh. Rahim Baksh
R/o TA51/3, Tughlakabad Extn.
Govindpur, New Delhi19 ..........Plaintiff.
Vs
1.Ms. Afsana, D/o Sh. Noor Mohammad
2. Mrs. Jamila, W/o Sh. Noor Mohammad
3. Mr. Ramzan, S/o Sh. Noor Mohammad All, R/o B288, Bhoomiheen Camp Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi110019
4. Ms. Pinki R/o infront of B288, Bhoomiheen Camp Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi110019
5. Mrs. Archana, W/o Sh. Veer Singh R/o B257, Bhumiheen Camp Govindpuri, New Delhi19
6. SHO, PS Govindpur, New Delhi ..........Defendants.
Date of institution of suit : 22.01.2015
Date on which order was reserved : 01.09.2015
Date of pronouncement of the order : 17.09.2015
CS No.41/2015 Ikramuddin vs Ms. Afsana & Ors. Page 1 of 8
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Order, I shall decide the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has stated his case as under:
1.1. The plaintiff along with his family members including his brother, wife and children has been residing at the address mentioned in the memo of parties.
1.2. The defendant no.1 had married with the son of plaintiff.
However, later on she took the divorce mutually. She never resided at the abovesaid property of the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 is her mother. Defendant no.3 is her brother. Defendant no.4 and 5 are their neighbours.
1.3. Asif Malik, eldest son of the plaintiff had married with the defendant no.1 without wishes of the plaintiff and other family members and without any intimation. In June 2013, he had went out of Delhi for 34 days under pretext of attending marriage of his friend. Later on, the plaintiff and family members came to know that he had married with the defendant no.1. The plaintiff decided to severe his relationship with his son. The defendant no.1 and Asif Malik also never came to the house of plaintiff. The plaintiff disowned him in the month of June 2013 by way of publication in the newspaper. CS No.41/2015 Ikramuddin vs Ms. Afsana & Ors. Page 2 of 8 1.4. After few months, Asif Malik came home and requested the plaintiff to reside along with him as he did not want to live with defendant no.1 as their marriage was not going well. Plaintiff refused to permit him to reside with him. Then, he left the premises. 1.5. Since November 2013, the defendant no.1 has started visiting the house of the plaintiff. Sometime, she comes alone and sometime with other relatives and defendants including the officials of defendant no.6. Defendant no.1 makes false allegations against the plaintiff and his family members that the plaintiff had kidnapped his son or that Asif Malik was hiding in the house. On 16.01.2014 the defendant no.1 visited the house of the plaintiff and made allegations against the plaintiff. She abused the plaintiff. After interventions of the neighbour she left the premises.
1.6. After sometime, son of the plaintiff met him and apologized for his mistakes. On request of his wife the plaintiff allowed his son to reside in his property. He also agreed to pay Rs. 3,00,000/ to the defendant no.1. Divorce by mutual consent was given by the son of the plaintiff which was accepted by defendant no.1. She had also taken Rs.3,00,000/ alimony, past and present maintenance, mehar etc. before the Court of Ms. Madhu Jain, Ld. Judge, Family Court, Saket, New Delhi. Thereafter, the defendant no.1 implicated the CS No.41/2015 Ikramuddin vs Ms. Afsana & Ors. Page 3 of 8 son of the plaintiff in false rape case. He was sent to judicial custody. After seven months, he was released on bail. After his released on bail, the defendant no.1 has started making false allegations against son of the plaintiff. She asked the son of the plaintiff to marry her again and only then she would withdraw the complaints and all cases. The son of the plaintiff agreed to remarry the defendant no.1. Since then, defendant no.1 is coming to the house of the house of the plaintiff. On 15.01.2015 the defendant no.1 started abusing the plaintiff and other family members in front of the house of the plaintiff. She was using filthy language. On 16.01.2015 the defendant no.2 visited the house of the plaintiff and starting raising hue and cry in front of the house of the plaintiff. He tried to enter the house forcibly. The plaintiff called the police. However, no action was taken. Plaintiff made written complaint on 17.01.2015.
1.7. The defendant no.1 to 5 along with other unknown persons visited the house of the plaintiff on 17.01.2015. They again used filthy language against plaintiff. They also threatened the plaintiff and other family members. They again visited the house of the plaintiff on 18.01.2015 and repeated the same acts. Now, the plaintiff has apprehension of danger to his life and property. Hence, the present suit has been filed with the following prayers:
CS No.41/2015 Ikramuddin vs Ms. Afsana & Ors. Page 4 of 8
"a) Restrain the defendants no.1 to 5, their agents, representatives, etc. from visiting the house of the plaintiffs i.e. TA51/3, Tughlakabad Extn. Govindpuri, New Delhi19 and from forcibly entering the house of the plaintiff;
b) Restrain the defendants no.1 to 5 their agents, representatives, etc. from visiting 100 meters radius from the house of plaintiffs i.e. TA51/3, Tughlakabad Extn., Govindpuri, New Delhi19;
c) restrain the defendants no.1 to 5, their agents, representatives, etc. from interfering in the peacefully life of the plaintiffs and their family members;
d) direct the defendant no.6 to restrain the defendants no.1 to 5 from going thereby the house of the plaintiffs and maintain peace, law and order in the locality;
e) pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The summons were issued to the defendants. The defendants no.1 to 3 appeared through counsel. Defendant 6 was represented by SI Jitender Singh. None appeared on behalf of defendant no.4 and 5 despite service. None of defendants filed WS. They were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 23.03.2015.
3. The plaintiff has led ex parte evidence. He has examined himself as PW1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. He has reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. He has relied upon the following documents.
CS No.41/2015 Ikramuddin vs Ms. Afsana & Ors. Page 5 of 8
a) Copy of PAN card is Ex.PW1/A (OSR);
b) the original electricity bills are Ex.PW1/B (3 pages);
c) copy of newspapers containing public notice are Mark C (colly4 pages);
d) copy of complaint dated 18.01.2015 to SHO PS Govindpuri is Mark D;
e) copy of courier receipt is Ex.PW1/E;
f) copy of order dated 30.01.2014 passed by Ld. Judge02, Family Courts is Ex.PW1/F;
g) Copy of affidavit of defendant no.1 is Ex.PW1/G;
h) copy of complaint is Mark H;
i) courier receipts are Ex.PW1/I.
4. The plaintiff has also examined Sh. Jamil Malik as PW2 who has relied upon a Video CD which is Ex.PW2/A. Moazzam Ali has been examined as PW3. Both the witnesses have supported the contentions made by the plaintiff in the plaint.
5. I have heard the submissions of the Ld. counsel and carefully perused the material available on record.
6. The suit is within limitation. This Court has jurisdiction to decide the present suit. The testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 have remained unrebutted.
7. After going through the testimonies of witnesses and the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has shown, on the balance of probability, that the defendants CS No.41/2015 Ikramuddin vs Ms. Afsana & Ors. Page 6 of 8 no.1 to 5 are trying to enter in the house of the plaintiff i.e., TA51/3, Tughlakabad Extn. Govindpuri, New Delhi without his permission. The defendant no.1 to 5 do not have any right to enter in the property of the plaintiff without permission of the plaintiff or without following due process of law. The plaintiff has rights to live in his property peacefully without interference from any outsider.
8. PW1 in his evidence has stated that the defendant no.1 to 5 are harassing him as they come in the house of plaintiff without his permission on various dates and create scene. PW2 and PW3 also have supported the contentions of the plaintiff. All these statements have remained unrebutted. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction thereby restraining the defendant no.1 to 5 from entering in the property of the plaintiff mentioned in the suit without following due process of law. However, the Court cannot pass any decree / order thereby restraining the defendants no.1 to 5 from entering in the area and from visiting any property within the radius of 100 meters from the property of the plaintiff. It would amount to curtailing the liberty of the defendants. Such an order cannot be passed by way of an injunction. The circumstances mentioned in the suit also do not require any such injunction. Therefore, such a relief is not granted. Further, the relief of CS No.41/2015 Ikramuddin vs Ms. Afsana & Ors. Page 7 of 8 the plaintiff that the defendants be restrained from interfering in peaceful life of plaintiff also cannot be granted. It is a vague relief and it is not possible to limit the interpretation of this relief. Even otherwise, such a relief is not required in the present case as it is sufficient if the defendant no.1 to 5 are restrained from entering into the property of the plaintiff.
9. In the light of discussion hereinabove, suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed. The prayer of the plaintiff in clause (b), (c) and (d) are declined. The prayer (a) is allowed. The defendants no.1 to 5 are hereby restrained from visiting the house of the plaintiff i.e. House no.TA51/3, Tughlakabad Extn. Govindpuri, New Delhi19, forcibly, without permission of the plaintiff and without following due process of law. However, it is made clear that this Order in no way shall create any bar to the rights of the defendants to take legal steps as per law available to them. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own cost.
10. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Pronounced in the open court (Dinesh Kumar)
on this 17th day of September, 2015 Civil Judge, South East
Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS No.41/2015 Ikramuddin vs Ms. Afsana & Ors. Page 8 of 8