Back
2009 Supreme(Del) 900
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judges: S. Muralidhar, J.
Aarti Sabharwal – Appellants
Vs.
Jitender Singh Chopra and Ors. – Respondent
CCP No. 180 of 2008 in CS (OS) 276/2007 and CS(OS) 276/2007
Decided On: 18.08.2009
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Y.P. Narula, Sr. Adv., Kirti Uppal and Sanjeet Singh, Advs. in CCP No. 180 of 2008 in CS(OS) 276/2007, T.K. Ganju, Sr. Adv., Ravi Shankar Nanda and Varun Tyagi, Advs. in IA No. 9739/2009 and Y.P. Narula, Sr. Adv. and Kirti Uppal, Adv. in CS(OS) 276/2007 For Respondents/Defendant:Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv., Kamal Chaudhary and Nikhil Bhalla, Advs. for Defendants 2 & 3, T.K. Ganju, Sr. Adv., Ravi Shankar Nanda and Varun Tyagi, Advs. for Contemnor/Respondent No. 6 in CCP No. 180 of 2008 in CS (OS) 276/2007 and Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv., Kamal Chaudhary and Nikhil Bhalla, Advs. for Defendants 2 & 3 in CS(OS) 276/2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation and application of the provisions of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1998.
Headnote:
Contempt Petition - Willful Disobedience - Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 - PWDVA - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1998 - Sections 18, 4 - The court found no merit in the contempt petition and dismissed it. The suit was rejected vis-a-vis Defendants 2 and 3 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Various other applications were disposed of accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a contempt petition against the Defendants for willful disobedience of the court's order. The Plaintiff sought maintenance and right of residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) and relief under the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). The Defendants were alleged to have violated the interim orders by disposing of properties and creating third-party interests.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the contempt petition and dismissed it. The suit was rejected vis-a-vis Defendants 2 and 3 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Various other applications were disposed of accordingly.
Issues: The issues involved the willful disobedience of court orders, entitlement to maintenance and right of residence under PWDVA and HAMA, and the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1998.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Defendants did not violate the interim orders and dismissed the contempt petition. It rejected the suit vis-a-vis Defendants 2 and 3 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The court also found that the Plaintiff's claim for maintenance against Defendants 2 and 3 under Section 18 HAMA was not maintainable.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was dismissed, the suit was rejected vis-a-vis Defendants 2 and 3, and various other applications were disposed of accordingly.
S. Muralidhar, J.
CCP No. 180 of 2008 in CS(OS) 276/2007 & I.A. No. 4037/2009 in CS(OS) No. 276/2007
1. This is a contempt petition filed by the Plaintiff in CS (OS) No. 276 of 2007 seeking punishment of the respondents/contemnors for willful disobedience of the order dated 15th February 2007 passed by this Court in the suit.
2. The background to the filing of the present petition is that the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) was married to the Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 1 (in the suit) on 27th October 2004. On account of the differences that arose between the parties, the Plaintiff lodged a complaint against Defendant No. 1 (husband), Defendant No. 2 (father-in-law), Defendant No. 3 (mother-in-law) with the Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi under Sections 406/498A IPC. Pursuant thereto an FIR was registered against the three Defendants on 3rd January 2007.
3. The Plaintiff also instituted proceedings against the Defendants under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) claiming inter alia maintenance and right of residence and interim orders on those terms.
4. The proceedings under the PWDVA before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM.), New Delhi witnessed the passing of an interim order in favour of the Plaintiff on 7th December 2006 directing the Respondents not to dispose of the shared household i.e. 32, Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli. The said interim order was continued on 11th December 2006 and again on 12th December 2006 till 18th December 2006. A perusal of the order passed by the learned MM on 18th December 2006 shows that the said interim order was not continued thereafter.
.5. The present suit was filed by the Plaintiff on 14th February 2007 under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA.) seeking the following relief:
.(a) pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents, attorneys from selling, alienating or creating any third party interests in property No. 32 Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi and Hotel Clarimont at Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Aaya Nagar, Mehrauli, New Delhi.
.(b) pass a decree of declaration thereby declaring the Divorce Proceedings filed by Defendant No. 1 before Guildford Country Court,
.U.K. as void and without jurisdiction and that the law applicable would be the Indian law and in the meantime restrain the Defendant No. 1 from pursuing the same.
.(c) pass a decree of maintenance under the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act and award a monthly maintenance of Rs. 7.5 lacs or any other amount as adjudicated by the Honble Court on the basis of status and income of defendants plus right of residence to the Plaintiff.
6. The averments, inter alia, in the plaint were that the Defendant No. 1who was a British passport holder had moved to the United Kingdom (U.K) to file a divorce petition against the Plaintiff there. On receipt of summons she sent a letter to the said court pointing out inter alia that the allegations made by Defendant No. 1 are false and that she has no resources to defend herself in the courts in UK. In the meanwhile the Plaintiff who had returned to Delhi from Dubai, where the parties were last residing together, tried to enter her matrimonial home at 32, Sultanpur Farms, Mehrauli, New Delhi where Defendants 2 and 3 were also residing. She was however threatened with dire consequences and her life was threatened as well. It was only thereafter that she filed an application under the PWDVA on 5th December 2006 seeking the reliefs as noticed hereinbefore. It was averred in the plaint that the Plaintiff had learnt that Defendants 2 to 4 in connivance with each other and at the behest of Defendant No. 1 were trying to sell the immovable properties in Delhi/Gurgaon which directly or indirectly belong to Defendant No. 1 by virtue of a so-called Power of Attorney given in favour of Defendant No. 2 by the said Defendant No. 1. It was apprehended that the Defendants
