Madan B. Lokur, J.

( 1 ) THE controversy that I am called upon to decide in the present case under Article 227 of the Constitution essentially relates to the situs of the matrimonial home of the Petitioner, who is the daughter in law of the Respondents.

( 2 ) THE Petitioner was married to Amit Batra on 14th April, 2000. They have a male child born on 27th November, 2001. Soon after their marriage, as per the prevailing practice, the Petitioner shifted into the home of Amit Batra and the respondents, that is, in the ground floor of property No. B-135, Ashok Vihar, phase I, Delhi. The entire property belongs to the Respondents but all of them lived together on the ground floor.

( 3 ) IT seems that some time in early 2002, relations between the parties deteriorated. According to the Petitioner, the Respondents treated her cruelly, and so the Petitioner and Amit Batra later shifted to the second floor of the said property, which became their matrimonial home. However, it appears that their shifting to the second floor of the said property did not improve relations between the Petitioner and the Respondents. On the contrary, relations deteriorated to such an extent that the Petitioner registered an FIR against the respondents, Amit Batra and other family members under the provisions of sections 406/498-A/506 and 34 of the IPC. On the basis of her complaint, the respondents, their son in law and Amit Batra were arrested in January 2003.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the Petitioner, these events made it even more difficult for her to stay in the matrimonial home, and so she shifted to her parents residence. Later, when she tried to enter the matrimonial home, she found that the main entrance was locked and so she was unable to enter her matrimonial home. This led the Petitioner to file Suit No. 87 of 2003 for a mandatory injunction directing the Respondents (and their son in law and her husband amit Batra) to open the main entrance to enable her to reside in the matrimonial home, that is, the second floor of property bearing No. B-135, Ashok Vihar, phase I, Delhi and for a permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from breaking open the locks of her matrimonial home and removing her goods therefrom.

( 5 ) THE suit was contested by the Respondents, who also applied for a mandatory direction to the Petitioner to hand over possession of the second floor of the Ashok Vihar property.

( 6 ) THE Respondents alleged before the Trial Judge, as also before me, that from sometime in September, 2002 the Petitioner was not residing in the second floor property. On the contrary, during the pendency of the suit, the Petitioner trespassed upon the property and on an inspection of the second floor, it was rioted on 23rd February, 2003 that only one blanket belonging to the Petitioner was found therein. It was further contended by the Respondents that their son amit Batra had purchased some property in Ghaziabad and had shifted there. It was consequently contended that that was now the matrimonial home of the petitioner. It was submitted that, in law, the user of the second floor of the property by the Petitioner was merely permissive, in as much as the entire property was owned by the Respondents and the Petitioner really had no right to reside in their property, except with their permission.

( 7 ) ON these broad facts, the learned Trial Judge decided on 4th March, 2003 both the applications for ad interim injunction filed by the parties. He held that the Petitioner was admittedly in possession of the second floor of the said property and that it would be in the fitness of things if both the parties did not interfere in each others possession and each others right to have access to the common passage.

( 8 ) FEELING aggrieved by the decision of the learned Trial Judge, the respondents appealed to the Senior Civil Judge who, by his Order dated 17th september, 2004 held that the Petitioner was not residing in the second floor premises since her goods (ot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document