Delhi District Court
Appellant vs Sudha Verma on 24 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE,
ADDITIONALSESSIONS JUDGE06, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.155/2017
Leela Ram
S/o Late Shri Chhote Lal
R/o House No.143,
Samman Bazar Bhogla
(Near Jain Mandir)
New Delhi
. . . . . . . Appellant
Versus
Sudha Verma
W/o Late Shri Rajesh Sagar
D/o Late Shri Suresh Chand
R/o House No.B24, Gali No.3,
Om Nagar, Meethapur,
Badarpur
New Delhi 110004
. . . . . . . Respondent
Date of Institution : 26.03.2018 Date of Arguments : 18.09.2018 Date of Judgment : 24.09.2018 J U D G M E N T
1. Vide this Judgment, I shall decide the present appeal filed under section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "DV Act") against the impugned order CA No.155/17 Page No.1 of 10 dated 12.01.2018 passed in the complaint case bearing CC No. 1541/17 titled Sudha Verma vs. Leela Ram.
2. The respondent/complainant had filed application under section 12 of DV Act for grant of protection order, residence order, monetary relief and compensation order against her fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and two brothersinlaw. Alongwith the said application, the respondent/complainant had filed an application under section 23 of the DV Act claiming interim monetary and residence order. The said application has been adjudicated by the impugned order wherein learned trial court declined to grant monetary relief to the respondent/complainant from her fatherinlaw at that stage. However, learned trial court allowed the other relief claimed by the respondent/complainant and directed that she be permitted to reside on the third floor of the shared household i.e. house no.143, Samman Bazar, Bhogal (near Jain Mandir), New Delhi. The present appeal has been filed against the said order of allowing the respondent/complainant to reside on the third floor of the said shared household.
3. The appellant has submitted that he is the fatherinlaw of the respondent/complainant. The marriage between his son and the respondent was solemnized on 13.05.13 at New Delhi. Thereafter, the attitude and behaviour of the respondent/complainant with the appellant and the other family members was very rude and cruel and the respondent was never discharging her matrimonial CA No.155/17 Page No.2 of 10 obligations/duties towards her husband (now deceased) as well as other family members including appellant.
4. The respondent remained with her deceased husband and appellant only for few months otherwise she usually resided at her parental house without any rhymes and reasons. The husband of the respondent namely Rajesh Sagar was suffering from AIDS (HIV+) and the respondent never took care of her ailing husband and left him alone. Respondents/complainant left her matrimonial house on 26.11.2014 and did not join her matrimonial house despite being approached several times.
5. On 18.10.2015, the son of the appellant/husband of the respondent expired and the respondent and her family members were duly informed but the respondent/complainant did not come to her matrimonial home to perform last rites of her deceased husband.
6. The respondent alongwith her other relatives came at the house of the appellant on 25.10.2015 for demanding her stridhan articles from the appellant. Later on, she also filed an FIR against the appellant and his other family members.
7. The appellant has filed the present appeal by submitting that the findings of the learned MM are against the law and facts of the record and that section 12 of DV act is a benevolent provision only with the view to protect the destitute and the helpless who are made to suffer CA No.155/17 Page No.3 of 10 for no fault of theirs. Thus, it is imperative that the person claiming such protection has to prove that she has been rendered unable to protect herself due to willful negligence of the person under the obligation to maintain her. There are no such circumstances in the present case.
8. Learned trial court failed to consider that the respondent willfully put herself in such a position or situation of inability. The conduct of the respondent would in itself tantamount to cruelty as she had been violent, abusive, rude and disrespectful to appellant and his other family members including the deceased husband. As the respondent never came forward to perform the last rites of her late husband nor took his care during the period of his illness/treatment.
9. The appellant has submitted that learned trial court failed to consider that the respondent deserted the company of her husband voluntarily and on her own without any rhymes or reasons in a situation when her deceased husband required her presence during his medical treatment period. The appellant has also submitted that learned MM has failed to consider that the appellant is a senior citizen and aged about 72 years living with his wife aged about 70 years and both are suffering from old age ailments and there is no source of income to maintain themselves.
10. The appellant made a small house in the area less than 50 sq. yds. and is residing with his wife on ground floor and on first floor, the CA No.155/17 Page No.4 of 10 son of the appellant namely Chaman Lal is residing alongwith his family and on the second floor, his son Mukesh Kumar is residing with his family and the third floor of the said house has been given on rent to the tenant and the 3rd floor is in the possession of tenant and the rent of the 3rd floor is the only source of the income to maintain the appellant and his wife who have no other alternate source of income except the rent.
11. Appellant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 12.01.2018.
12. The respondent has not filed any reply to the present appeal and arguments have been advanced directly on her behalf. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that respondent/complainant was got married to the son of the appellant without telling her that he is suffering from AIDS. It has also been alleged that the respondent/complainant was subjected to humiliation and torture by her fatherinlaw, motherinlaw and brothers in law for dowry demand. Learned counsel for respondent has also submitted that husband of the respondent was also not satisfied with the money spent and items given in his marriage with the respondent by her mother and brothers.
13. Learned counsel for respondent has submitted that respondent/complainant was also subjected to physical beatings given by fist and leg blows by her husband. It has also been argued CA No.155/17 Page No.5 of 10 that respondent/complainant was threatened to come with ₹ 5 lakh otherwise she would not be allowed to enter in her matrimonial house on the occasion when she had gone to her parental home on 1 st holi after her marriage. Learned counsel for respondent has submitted that on 26.11.2014, husband of respondent and his family members gave beating to her and threw her out of her matrimonial house by telling her that in case she would come back home without ₹ 5 lakh, her ear and nose would be cut. Learned counsel for respondent has also argued that on 23.10.2015, the respondent/complainant came to know about death of her husband due to AIDS and on 25.10.2015 she along with her brothers, maternal uncle, sister, brotherinlaw and one friend of her father went to her matrimonial home and her inlaws did not allow her to enter in her matrimonial house and all of them misbehaved with her and other persons who had accompanied her. She also demanded her stridhan from her inlaws but they flatly refused to return the same to her. It has been alleged that mark sheet of graduation, bank passbook, voter ID card having address of her matrimonial home and Aadhar card etc. are also in illegal possession of her parents in law and brotherinlaw and they have not returned the same to her despite her repeated demands. In this regard the respondent/complainant got lodged an FIR bearing no. 284/2016 under section 498A/406 IPC at PS Jaitpur against her inlaws.
14. Learned counsel for respondent has argued that there is no merit in the present appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.
CA No.155/17 Page No.6 of 1015. Trial court record and the impugned order has been perused.
16. The admitted facts between the appellant and the respondent is that the respondent was not residing at her matrimonial home since 26.11.2014 though the reasons stated for that by both of them are different. It is also an admitted fact that the son of the appellant/husband of the respondent expired on 18.10.2015 and that the respondent/complainant visited her matrimonial home on 25.10.2015. Learned trial court lost sight of the fact that deeming that the submission of the respondent/complainant is correct that she was not allowed to enter her matrimonial home on the said date, the raising of demand of stridhan and jewellery articles by the respondent/complainant from her inlaws just 7 days after death of her husband when his last rites were also not performed completely does reflect inappropriate conduct of the respondent/complainant.
17. While the appellant has submitted that respondent had taken away all her stridhan and jewellery articles when she left the matrimonial home, the respondent has submitted that her inlaws had kept her stridhan and jewellery articles with them. However it is an admitted fact that there are no such contemporary complaints/police complaints made by the respondent/complainant during the relevant period of 2013 or 2014 when she was allegedly subjected to harassment and humiliation for dowry demand by the appellant or his family.
CA No.155/17 Page No.7 of 1018. The respondent/complainant in her complaint before learned trial court has herself submitted that she along with her husband lived at 3rd floor of the matrimonial home for some time which is in name of her husband and did not claim that she continued to stay at the 3 rd floor of the said house. She has filed copy of electricity bill of 3 rd floor which is in the name of her husband. The respondent/complainant in her complaint before the learned trial court has herself admitted that her parents in law have rented out the 3 rd floor of the matrimonial home to some tenant and are keeping its rent. Learned counsel for respondent has argued that since the 3rd floor of the house is the share of husband of respondent/complainant she is legally the owner of the said 3rd floor and therefore legally entitled to live in it. However the application under section 12 of DV Act is not meant to decide the title of any property and electricity bill is even otherwise not a document of title.
19. The appellant had filed their detailed reply before learned trial court and had submitted that the respondent/complainant always resided at the ground floor along with her parents in law and never resided at the 3rd floor as alleged by her. The 3rd floor always remained rented out and the household expenses were also incurred from the rent of the 3rd floor. They had also replied that the fatherin law and motherinlaw are still ready and willing to keep the complainant along with them at the ground floor.
20. Learned trial court has observed in the impugned order that CA No.155/17 Page No.8 of 10 admittedly the parties were residing in a shared household and the complainant (respondent herein) has alleged that after the death of her husband she was not permitted to enter into her matrimonial home and this act prima facie amounts to domestic violence and hence the complainant/aggrieved is entitled to a relief under DV Act. Thereafter after discussing the law laid down in matter titled Preeti Satija vs. Raj Kumari and others pronounced on 15.01.2014 directed that the complainant/aggrieved be permitted to reside on the 3 rd floor of the shared household.
21. In my considered opinion the learned trial court rightly allowed the claim of the respondent/complainant of residing in the shared household. However directing that she be permitted to reside on the 3rd floor of the shared household is against the admitted facts of the parties that the 3rd floor of the shared household has been let out by the inlaws, appellant being one of them, to the tenants and that the same is being paid to the appellant and his wife who are senior citizens aged 72 and 70 years respectively and both are suffering from old age ailments and there is no other source of income to maintain themselves except the rent being received by letting out the third floor.
22. Thus the impugned order is modified to the extent that the complainant/aggrieved/respondent is permitted to reside on the ground floor of the shared household i.e. House no. 143, Samman Bazaar, Bhogal(near Jain Mandir), New Delhi.
CA No.155/17 Page No.9 of 1023. The appeal is therefore allowed in these terms.
24. Parties are directed to appear before learned trial court on date fixed.
25. A true copy of the Judgment be sent alongwith the trial court record.
26. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on
24.09.2018
(Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
Additional Sessions Judge06,
Digitally South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
signed by
NEERA
NEERA BHARIHOKE
BHARIHOKE Date:
2018.09.25
16:16:48
+0530
CA No.155/17 Page No.10 of 10