Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. It is stated that the father-in-law of the plaintiff executed a Will dated 15.05.2006 in favour of the plaintiff whereby he bequeathed the suit property at Narela admeasuring 217 sq. yards and agricultural and residential property situated at village Singhu, Delhi. The father-in-law expired on 01.01.2007 and subsequent thereto, the plaintiff became absolute owner of the suit property. The plaintiff with her husband and children is residing at the ground floor of the suit property.

3. The plaint further states that the marriage of defendants No. 1 and 2 was solemnized on 23.02.2008. After the marriage, the plaintiff permitted user of first floor accommodation (suit property) to the defendants for their residential purpose. Thereafter, defendant No. 2 got employment as a clerk in the District & Sessions Court at Sonepat. On account of irreconcilable differences between the defendants, defendant No. 1 filed a petition for divorce seeking divorce from defendant No. 2. It is stated that defendant No. 2, thereafter, lodged a false and frivolous FIR being FIR No. 21 dated 04.09.2010 in Mahila Police Station, Sonepat against defendant No. 1 and also falsely implicated the plaintiff and her husband. The husband of the plaintiff was arrested and released from custody after about two weeks. The plaintiff was granted anticipatory bail. Defendant No. 2 has also filed a case under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the plaintiff and her husband. Hence, the present suit has been filed for recovery of possession of the suit property.

7. On 19.07.2013, it was clarified that the said issue as stated in the order dated 15.03.2013 shall be treated as a preliminary issue. On the request of the learned counsel for defendant No. 2, the matter was adjourned to 07.08.2013 for arguments on the preliminary issue.

8. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has argued that the defendants were allowed to reside in the suit property by the plaintiff after their marriage. Thereafter the marriage has broken down and defendant No. 1 has, on his own will, as per his own written statement, moved out of the suit property. It is, hence, submitted that defendant No. 2 has no right whatsoever to continue to reside in the suit property and hence, the present suit is liable to be decreed. It is further submitted that in any case, after defendant No. 2 got a job in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Sonepat, she has moved out of the said house and she is no longer residing in the said house. However, it is submitted that a decree in favour of the plaintiff is necessary in the present suit as defendant No. 2 keeps changing her stand and is likely to, even otherwise, interfere with the possession of the plaintiff unless a decree is passed.

Reliance is also placed on the order of Sh.Rakesh Kumar Yadav, JMIC, Sonepat dated 03.05.2012 in an application filed by defendant No.2 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the said order, the court has on the basis of the report of the protection officer and the documents placed on record noted that the petitioner (defendant No. 2 herein) is in employment of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sonepat and has taken no temporary/permanent permission to leave the station meaning thereby either she has not maintained her headquarter or she has never resided at Narela. On the basis of the facts, the court concluded that the petitioner (defendant No. 2 herein) is not entitled for an interim relief of residence order as well as protection order as she is residing at the relevant time at Sonepat. The Court also noted the report of the Protection Officer which states that previously defendant No. 2 has been committing cruelty upon the plaintiff herein by locking the entire portion of the house whereby sometimes the plaintiff and her husband were not able to use the toilet at night. It is also stated that defendant No. 2 was taking contradictory stands in different proceedings. It is also pointed out that against the said order dated 03.05.2012 passed by Sh.Rajesh Kumar Yadav, JMIC, Sonepat, defendant No. 2 preferred a Criminal Revision in the Court of Sh. Sukrm Pal, Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. The revision petition was also dismissed. The relevant court has declined to grant relief of residence order or protection order to defendant No. 2.

24. It may also be noted that defendant No. 2 has approached the appropriate court under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. However, the court has declined her any relief of residence order or protection order. Learned counsel for defendant No.2 has contended that a petition against the said orders is pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

25. Even otherwise, it appears that defendant No. 2 is taking contradictory stands. A perusal of the documents relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff shows that she has herself claimed to have left the suit premises and is staying with her parents in Sonepat. In the statement before M.S. Dweivedi, Special Executive Magistrate on 08.11.2011, she has stated that she is not residing in the suit property. Similarly, the concerned court dealing with her application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has concluded that in view of the fact that defendant No. 2 is employed in the office of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sonepat she could not have left station without prior permission. The said documents show that defendant no. 2 is employed with the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sonepat. She has to take prior permission before leaving headquarter. She has, admittedly, not taken any such permission. Hence, it is clear that there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that she has abandoned the suit premises and is now staying in Sonepat.