Delhi District Court
In Reference vs (I) Smt. Sarita @ Sheetal on 11 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITU RAJ : CIVIL JUDGE : NORTH
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CS SCJ 450/22
CRN No. DLNT030006762022
In reference:
Sh. Ganga Beesan
S/o late Sh. Salag Ram
R/o:H.No. 259, Jahangir Puri
Delhi110033 ...........Plaintiff
VERSUS
(I) Smt. Sarita @ Sheetal
W/o S/o Sh. Naresh
Presently R/o H.No. 259, Jahangir Puri
Delhi110033
(II) Sh. Naresh
S/o Sh. Ganga Beesan
R/o:H.No. 259, Jahangir Puri
Delhi110033 ........... Defendants
Date of Institution : 07.04.2022
Date of reservation of Judgment : 03.06.2023
Date of Judgment : 11.07.2023
CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 1 of 20
EXPARTE JUDGEMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I will dispose of the suit filed by the
plaintiff against the defendants seeking the relief as contained in
the prayer clause of the plaint.
FACTS AS PER THE PLAINT :
2. That the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing H.No. 259, Jahangir Puri, Delhi110003 (hereinafter referred as the 'suit property') being alloted by DDA in the year 1976 under the scheme of twenty point program of the persons, who had returned from Pakistan and gone with vasectomy. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff in the year 1980 got vasectomy removed as advise by the doctor and that plaintiff applied for loan to construct his house with the State Bank of India, Jahangir Puri Branch. It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendant no. 1 is the daughter in law of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 is the son of the plaintiff and that defendant no. 1 got married with the defendant no. 2 in the year 2010 in Delhi according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies, since then they both had resided with the plaintiff at the first floor of the aforesaid property. That the defendant no. 2 on the pretext of to get some documents prepared and also to enroll the name of the defendant no. 1 in the ration card, took the original property papers of the plaintiff and never returned the same and CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 2 of 20 whenever plaintiff demanded, the defendant ignored the demand of the plaintiff on one pretext or the other. That the behavior and conduct of the defendant no. 1 has been questionable towards the plaintiff and other family members right since the beginning of the marriage and defendant no. presumably has temperamental issues with the defendant no. 2 as she is extremely violent and start throwing household articles on most trivial household issues and defendant no. 2 has been harassing and humiliating the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 in every possible manner. Therefore, plaintiff had separated and allowed the defendants no. 1 and 2 to reside in the ground floor as a licensee, thereafter, the defendant no. 1 did not desist from passing comments and humiliating the plaintiff and his wife whenever she used to come to the floor of the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 further deteriorated after the death of plaintiff's wife as defendant no. 1 refused to cook for the plaintiff and further forced the defendant no. 2 to also not to help the plaintiff in any manner. Plaintiff claims that with his hard earned income and saving, he constructed one more floor and the suit property and given the same on rent to tenant to avoid spreading hands in front of anyone and that the defendant no. 1 has been forcefully collecting the rent from the tenant of the plaintiff by giving threats to vacate the rented premises, therefore, the said tenant CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 3 of 20 left the said rent premises. Plaintiff claims that the current tenant has also reminded the plaintiff they will vacate the premises, if the defendant no. 1 did not stop the said act. Plaintiff claims that he has lodged a complaint against the defendants, but no action has been taken. Hence, the present suit has been filed.
PRAYER:
3. Plaintiff has made the following prayer:
(a) That a decree of mandatory injunction in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants may be passed directing the defendants to vacate the suit property.
(b) That a decree of permanent injunction may be passed in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restrained them, their agents, relations and representatives etc. from forcibly entering into the second floor of the property bearing no. 259, Jahangir Puri, Delhi110033.
(c) That a decree of permanent injunction may be passed in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining them, their agents, relations and representatives etc. to hand over the property documents of the suit property.
(d) That the cost of the suit alongwith the counsel fees CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 4 of 20 may also be awarded to the plaintiff.
DEFENCE:
4. Despite service of summons upon the defendants on 19.04.2022, neither the defendants appeared nor filed their WS. Hence, vide order dated 29.10.2022, the right of the defendants to file WS was closed and the suit was proceeded exparte qua the defendants.
REPLICATION:
5. No replication has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff in the present case.
ISSUES:
6. No issues have been framed in the present matter.
EVIDENCE:
7. In support of the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents:
(a) Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) being the copy of aadhar card of the deponent.
(b) Ex. PW1/2 being the copy of Vasectomy report. The same being a copy, is hereby deexhibited and marked as CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 5 of 20 Mark A.
(c) Ex. PW1/3 being the copy of loan slip from the bank.
The same being a copy, is hereby deexhibited and marked as Mark B.
(d) Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) being the copy of police complaint dated 20.12.2021.
(e) Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) being the copy of possession slip issued by DDA, JJ cell.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
8. Final arguments heard at length on behalf of the plaintiff.
FINDINGS:
9. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines "burden of proof" and lays down that the burden of proving a fact always lies upon the person who asserts the facts. Therefore, the burden of proof always lies on the plaintiff initially to prove the facts alleged by her. This principle of law remains the same even in cases where the suit has been proceeded exparte qua the defendant.
10. The law with regard to burden of proof of plaintiff in case of exparte proceeding has been well settled in a plethora of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though, the burden CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 6 of 20 of proof on the plaintiff in exparte proceeding is not very heavy, but the necessity of proof by the plaintiff of his case to the satisfaction of the court cannot be dispensed with. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani, (2003) 7 SCC 350 explained the law with regard to burden of proof of plaintiff in an exparte suit. The observations of the Hon'ble Apex court may be reproduced herewith as follows: "Even if the suit proceeds ex parte and in the absence of a written statement, unless the applicability of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC is attracted and the court acts thereunder, the necessity of proof by the plaintiff company of his case to the satisfaction of the court cannot be dispensed with. In the absence of denial of plaint averments the burden of proof on the plaintiff company is not very heavy. A prima facie proof of the relevant facts constituting the cause of action would suffice and the court would grant the plaintiff company such relief as to which he may in law be found entitled. In a case which has proceeded ex parte the court is not bound to frame issues under Order 14 and deliver the judgment on every issue as required by Order 20 Rule 5. Yet the trial court should scrutinize the available pleadings and documents, consider the evidence adduced, and would do well to frame the CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 7 of 20 "points for determination" and proceed to construct the ex parte judgment dealing with the points at issue one by one. Merely because the defendant is absent the court shall not admit evidence the admissibility whereof is excluded by law nor permit its decision being influenced by irrelevant or inadmissible evidence."
11. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the plaintiff has claimed to be the owner of the entire suit property and has claimed that the defendants were allowed to live in the ground floor of the suit property in the capacity of licensees. Despite opportunity, the defendants failed to file the written statement and accordingly, the claim of the plaintiff has gone unrebutted qua ownership and possession of the suit property. However, mere determination of the ownership and possession in itself is not sufficient for the proper determination of the case at hand since upon a perusal of the plaint shows that the defendant no. 2 is the son of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 is his daughter in law. Accordingly, the determination of the right of residence of D1 in the suit property on account of it being a shared household becomes essential.
12. The jurisdiction of a Civil Court to adjudicate upon matters pertaining to the right of a daughterinlaw to reside in a CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 8 of 20 matrimonial house is derived from S. 26 (1) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after called as 'DV Act') which enables the reliefs u/s 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the DV Act to be claimed through proceedings before a Civil Court. In the present case, it is the right of defendant no. 1 to reside in the shared household which has to be essentially decided for the proper adjudication of the suit. In order to adjudicate upon the said claim, it would be imperative to determine what constitutes a shared household.
13. The term 'shared household' has been defined in S. 2 (s) of the DV Act as follows:
(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 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 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.
14. The term 'aggrieved person' and 'domestic relationship' have been defined in S. 2 (a) and S. 2 (f), respectively, of the DV Act as follows:
CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 9 of 20(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;
(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;
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414 while discussing the aforesaid concept of shared household went on to hold as follows:
"We are of the view that the definition of shared household in Section 2(s) is an exhaustive definition. The first part of definition begins with expression "means" which is undoubtedly an exhaustive definition and second part of definition, which begins with word "includes" is explanatory of what was meant by the definition. " (Para 53) "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 subdivided 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 CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 10 of 20 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(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." (Para 55)
16. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid definitions shows that the definition of a shared household comprises of two parts; with the first part being where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship with the Respondent, and part two of the aforesaid definition states that such shared household can be either owned or tenanted jointly by the aggrieved person and the Respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of the aggrieved CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 11 of 20 person and the Respondent in respect of which either of them jointly or singly have any right, title or interest and it would include any household which may belong to the joint family of which the Respondent is a member regardless of the fact whether the aggrieved person or the Respondent has a right therein. However, it goes without saying that in order to qualify as a shared household, there has to be some permanency to the living and mere fleeting or casual living at different places would not make the household a shared household [para 63, Satish Ahuja (supra)].
17. In the present case, it is the own case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants had been admitted to the suit property, by the Plaintiff himself, after the marriage of the Defendants. It has nowhere been pleaded in the pleadings that the residence of the Defendants in the suit property was intended to be temporary in nature. Moreover, as discussed above, the fact that whether the Respondent, D2 in the present case, has any right in the household belonging to the joint family of which he is a part is immaterial and the same negates the contention of the Plaintiff that since the Defendants do not have any right, title or interest in the suit property, the same cannot be considered to be a shared household. Accordingly, it stands proved that the suit property is a shared household within the precincts of the DV CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 12 of 20 Act.
18. However, the prerequisites which are to be satisfied before the right of residence in a shared household can be claimed by a daughterinlaw are:
(1) That the property is a shared household. (2) That she lived in a domestic relationship in the suit property with the Respondent.
(3) That she is an aggrieved person.
19. It goes without saying that merely because the suit property is a shared household, that by itself would not grant the right of residence therein unless the aforesaid requirements are satisfied. The fact that the suit property is shared household has already been determined above and so has the fact that the Defendant1 had lived in a domestic relationship with D2 in the suit property / shared household. However, merely because the Defendants have lived in the suit property in a domestic relationship, by itself, would not grant the right of residence to the Defendant2 to live in the suit property as a shared household for the requirement of her being an aggrieved person also has to be satisfied. An aggrieved person, as defined in S. 2
(a) of the DV Act, means a person who is the victim of domestic violence with the term 'Domestic Violence' being CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 13 of 20 defined in S. 3 of the DV Act. Hence, D1 was required to prove that she had been subjected to domestic violence in order to fulfil the requirement of her being an aggrieved person in order to claim the right of residence in the suit property on account of it being her shared household. However, apart from bare averments in the pleadings, no evidence has been led by the Defendants to prove the factum of domestic violence and hence, in the absence of any such evidence, the requirement of D1 being an aggrieved person remains unfulfilled and hence, no right of residence in the suit property can be granted.
20. The upshot of the entire discussion is that owing to the failure of the Defendants to prove D1 as an aggrieved person, no right of residence in the shared household can be claimed by them qua the suit property.
21. Even otherwise, it is a settled proposition of law that the right of residence of a daughterinlaw in a shared household is not an indefeasible right and the Courts should always strive to balance the rights of both the parties. The same has been reiterated in Satish Ahuja (supra), where it was held as follows:
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 CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 14 of 20 household especially when the daughterinlaw is pitted against aged fatherinlaw and motherinlaw. The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughterinlaw. 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. (Para 83)
22. The same has been reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ritu Chernalia Vs. Amar Chernalia and Ors. WP (C) 6986/23 DOD 22.05.2023 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi relying upon the decision of Satish Ahuja (Supra) went on to hold as follows:
"10. Heard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgement dated 15 th October, 2020 in CA No. 2483/2020 titled Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja while discussing the concept of shared household held as under:
"83. 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 daughterinlaw is pitted against aged fatherinlaw and motherinlaw. The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughterinlaw. 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.CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 15 of 20
11. Thus, the concept of shared household clearly provides that the right of the daughterinlaw in a shared household is not an indefeasible right and cannot be to the exclusion of the inlaws. The stand of the Petitioner that the inlaws should not be allowed to live in their own property is completely contrary to the settled understanding on the subject. The daughterinlaw, while claiming rights to live in her matrimonial home or shared household, cannot be seen to argue that the inlaws ought not to live with her in the shared household. If circumstances exist which demonstrate that they cannot live together, alternate accommodation may also have to be explored for the daughterinlaw."
23. However, as the Defendants in the present suit have failed to prove the right of residence of D1 in the suit property, no question arises for balancing the rights of the Defendants with that of the Plaintiff. Still, owing to the duty cast on the Courts to resolve and balance the rights of the parties in cases where the dispute is essentially between parentsinlaw and daughters inlaw, this Court will now proceed to adjudicate upon the conflicting interests / claims of the parties. Even if the existence of the right to residence in the suit property of D1 on account of it being a shared household is presumed, having regard to the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Vinay Varma Vs. Kanika Pasricha and Anr. 2019 SCC Online DEL 11530, wherein certain guidelines were laid down to be considered while attempting to properly balance the aforesaid conflicting interests, this Court will now proceed to CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 16 of 20 apply the ratio of Vinay Varma (supra) to the facts of the present case and attempt to balance the rights of the Defendants with that of the Plaintiff. However, before proceeding to do so, it would be appropriate to reproduce the guidelines laid down in Vinay Varma (supra) for the sake of brevity:
"1. The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the son‟s/ daughter‟s family.
2. If the case involves eviction of a daughter in law, the court has to also ascertain whether the daughterinlaw 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/daughterinlaw or daughter/son inlaw 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 daughterinlaw would remain both upon the inlaws 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 daughterinlaw from their property, an alternative reasonable accommodation would have to be provided to her.
5. In case the son or his family is illtreating the parents CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 17 of 20 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 daughterinlaw, however, for a reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the daughter inlaw during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband."
24. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of the present case, as regards the relation between the parties to the suit, nothing has been brought on record to show that the defendants had an acrimonious relationship with each other and no whisper has been made as to the existence of any marital discord between them. However, the relationship between the parties interse i.e. between the plaintiff and the defendants is acrimonious. The same is fairly apparent from the plaint whereby the plaintiff has averred that the defendants have been cruel and have misbehaved with him. The factum of ill treatment of the plaintiff has been reiterated by the plaintiff in his examination in chief and no crossexamination whatsoever was done by the defendants upon the said aspect and in the absence of any such crossexamination, the testimony of the plaintiff remains CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 18 of 20 unrebutted on the aspect of cruelty towards him by the defendants. The acrimonious relationship between the parties is further corroborated by complaints dated 08.11.2021 and 20.12.2021 made by the plaintiff to the police authorities substantiating the illtreatment meted out to him by the defendant no. 1. Hence, what arises from the aforesaid discussion is that the Plaintiff has been mistreated by the Defendants and this court is of the view that the plaintiff, in his old is entitled to live a life of peace and quiet, unperturbed by the marital discord between the defendants. As has already been discussed above, the right of residence of a daughterinlaw is not an indefeasible right and having regard to the facts of the present case, this Court holds the plaintiff entitled to the decree of possession of the suit property and deems it appropriate to direct the Defendants to vacate the suit property within a period of one month from today and to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the same to the Plaintiff. The defendants are also hereby restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff qua the second floor of the suit property by forcibly entering therein.
25. As regards the relief sought by the plaintiff seeking an injunction directing the defendants to hand over the property documents of the suit property, the plaintiff has failed to CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 19 of 20 describe the nature of documents which were allegedly taken by defendant no. 2. in the absence of any description of the documents sought to be reclaimed by the plaintiff, the relief sought by the plaintiff on this count is rejected as being vague since it was imperative upon the plaintiff to state the nature and description of documents for which the relief of injunction in clause (C) of the prayer clause has been sought.
26. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the present suit is partly decreed to the extent that the defendants are hereby directed to vacate the ground floor of the suit property within a period of one month from today and to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the same to the Plaintiff. The defendants are also hereby restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff qua the second floor of the suit property by forcibly entering therein. The costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
27.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
28. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 11th July, 2023 (PRITU RAJ) CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH) ROHINI/DELHI/11.07.2023 CS SCJ450/22 SH. GANGA BEESAN Vs. SMT. SARITA @ SHEETA Page 20 of 20