The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's disapproval of the petitioner's misuse of legal proceedings and the imposition of costs as a deterrent.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) ADMIT.

( 2 ) AT the request of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

( 3 ) IN our social system it is the female species which invariably requires the protection of the court. The courts have been indulgent in this behalf to see that the rights of the women are protected including as a wife. The present case is unfortunately one where the petitioner, a lady, has attempted to overreach the court, indulge in falsehood and utilize legal proceedings for her own benefit.

( 4 ) THE petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The parties are married for quite some time, have four children out of which three children are already adults. There has been continuous acrimony between the parties and in the present proceedings an attempt at mediation was also made through Delhi High court Mediation and Conciliation Centre but the same was not fruitful.

( 5 ) THE petitioner approached this court by a suit for perpetual injunction on the allegation that she was apprehending that the respondent-husband may dispossess her and her children from the suit property J-77, Saket, New Delhi which is their matrimonial home. The property consists of 125 square yards with a constructed ground floor, first floor, second floor and barsati. The first floor was already sold out while the second floor was on rent to one Mr. Praveen kumar at the rate of Rs 6,000/- per month. The ground floor was occupied by the petitioner and her children.

( 6 ) ON the plaint being presented, an ad interim order was granted on 18. 12. 2000 restraining the respondent herein from dispossessing the petitioner and her children from the suit property. In fact the order states that the respondent is restrained from 'selling, transferring, dispossessing of the same or creating any third party interest in the suit property'. This order continued to operate and on 13. 10. 2002 while continuing the interim orders it was clarified that the ex parte order dated 18. 12. 2000 would not entitle the petitioner to obstruct the respondent from using or staying in the property in suit since allegation of the respondent was that he was thrown out into the streets. In subsequent proceedings, the interim orders have been modified inasmuch as on 13. 05. 2004 on an application of the respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) the restraint was restricted to the petitioner and her children not being dispossessed from the suit property except in accordance with law.

( 7 ) THE petitioner apparently inducted one Mr. Vijay Singh as a tenant in respect of one room on the ground floor along with the right to share the kitchen on 31. 12. 2002. The document of lease was executed by the petitioner claiming to be owner of the property in question (though it is not in dispute that she is not the owner and it is the respondent who is the owner ). The rent agreement of the said date states that the tenant has also satisfied himself to the title of the petitioner. As to how is not known. The petitioner failed to bring such an arrangement of the lease agreement to the notice of the court and it is for the first time in the proceedings held on 06. 01. 2004 that this aspect was brought to the notice of the learned Additional District Judge. It may be noticed that in view of the increase in pecuniary jurisdiction of this court, the suit was transferred to the trial court. The petitioner claims that since the tenant in respect of the second floor vacated the portion in his occupation in July, 2002, the source of income which was being derived by the petitioner got blocked as she was enjoying the rent and her children occupied the second floor on account of paucity of accommodation. On the proceedings held on 06. 01. 2004 the petitioner stated that the tenant was going to leave the portion very shortly and thus orders on certain interim applications and on an application under o