IMPORTANT POINT
Suit No. 680/1999 pending in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is transferred to City Civil Court, Mumbai so that the petitioner may have a fair opportunity to defend herself in those proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-This is a transfer petition filed by the wife of the respondent No.1 Rohit Rai Mehra praying for transfer of suit No. 680 of 1999 pending in the court of Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to the City Civil Court, Mumbai. The suit has been filed by the respondent No.1 for Permanent Injunction in respect of Flat No. 341, Pragati Apartments, New Delhi, which, according to the petitioner, was purchased by her father Satyapal Khanna and was gifted to her and she is the owner of the said flat. According to the petitioner, the suit has been filed with a view to harass the petitioner due to the matrimonial dispute between the parties.

2. According to the petitioner, her marriage with respondent no. 1 Rohit Rai Mehra took place in 1991 in Delhi whereafter she started living in her matrimonial home at 234, New Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi along with her husband namely, respondent No.1 and his parents. It is also the case of the petitioner that sufficient jewellery and cash was given in the marriage still the demand for a car was made and harassment of the petitioner started. Ultimately, a few months after the marriage a car was also presented to the respondent No.1 but the harassment continued. According to the petitioner, things came down to physical assaults and mental torture caused by the respondent No.1 and her in-laws, more so, after she gave birth to a child. Ultimately, her father Satyapal Khanna, respondent No. 2, purchased a flat for her namely, flat No.341, Pragati Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and gifted it to her and also executed a power of attorney in her favour. It is also her case that the flat has been transferred in her name. She and respondent No.1 shifted and started living in the said apartment but sometime later her in-laws, it is said, sold their flat in New Rajendra Nagar and purchased a flat nearby namely flat No.305, Pragati Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. She also gave birth to a female child. Her case further is that on 6.11.1997 she was given a severe physical assault but she continued to live with respondent No.1 in her flat.

3. The allegations further go to indicate that the brother of the respondent No.1 had even extended threat to her to kidnap her son which scared her to the extent that she left Delhi and went to her parents at Bombay wherefrom she informed to respondent No.1 about the whole position. Immediately thereafter on 3.1.1998 respondent No.1 filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in Delhi Court. The petitioner moved this Court by filing a Transfer Petition (C) No. 596 of 1998 which was allowed on 3.8.1998 and the case was transferred to Bombay observing that the case deserved to be transferred to Family Court, Mumbai. The petitioner also filed certain criminal cases in connection with the demand of dowry etc. against respondent no. 1 and her in-laws and the proceedings whereof have been initiated in Bombay courts. The effort made by respondent No.1 for quashing of the FIR failed and the petition moved by respondent No.1 was dismissed by the Bombay High Court.

4. It is submitted that as a sequel of what has been going on between the parties, respondent No.1 filed the Suit No.680 of 1999 for Permanent Injunction in respect of Flat No.341, Pragati Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi by impleading the father of the petitioner only as a defendant. The petitioner, being the owner of the flat moved for being impleaded as a party in the said suit. The car which was presented to respondent No.1 was seized and the Flat No. 341, Pragati Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was also sealed by the Bombay police. Ultimately, it is alleged that respondent No.1 succeeded in getting the sealed apartment opened, the car however seized from respondent No.1 was delivered possession of to the petitioner. In proceedings which were going on regarding opening of the sealed apartment at Delhi in one of them the petitioner was even ordered to be present personally