Back
2009 Supreme(Del) 1012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
Master Ryan Thru Its Mother Mrs. Ridhima Juneja – Plaintiff
Versus
P.N. Juneja & Sons HUF- Defendants
I.A. Nos. 12605/2007, 920/2008 and 8225 of 2009
in CS (OS) 2177 of 2007
Decided on : 18.09.2009
Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jatin Sehgal
Mr. Samrat Nigam, Advocate Ms. Sima Gulati, Advocate for Def-No2.
Injunction is a discretionary and equitable relief, and a party seeking equity should also do equity.
Headnote:
Domestic Violence - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sec. 20 and 22 - S.R. Batra & Anr. v. Taruna Batra (Smt.), (2007) 3 SC 169
Fact of the Case:
Ridhima and her minor child were allegedly abused and assaulted in her matrimonial home by her in-laws and husband. She filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the 2005 Act) and sought relief of maintenance and compensation. The appellate court concurred with the trial court's findings about instances of domestic violence and directed payment of compensation. The plaintiffs also sought interim orders to injunct the defendants from dispossessing them from Ridhima's matrimonial home.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs' occupation of the premises cannot be termed lawful, and they had no legal right to re-enter the premises on the basis of the interim order. The court directed the plaintiffs to vacate the premises within three months and expedited the proceedings before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the right to residence in the matrimonial home, the validity of the interim orders, and the equitable entitlement of the plaintiffs to continue in the premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs' occupation of the premises was not lawful, and their conduct in gaining entry in July 2009 could not be condoned. Injunction is a discretionary and equitable relief, and a party seeking equity should also do equity.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application and allowed the defendants' applications, directing the plaintiffs to vacate the premises within three months and expedite the proceedings before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge.
1. This order will dispose of I.A. no. 12605/2007 (of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2), I.A. no. 920/2008 (of the first, third and fourth defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4) and I.A. no. 8225/2009 (of the third and fourth defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4).
2. The first plaintiff is the minor son of the second plaintiff (hereafter, “Ridhima”) and the second defendant (hereafter, “Deven”). The marriage between Ridhima and Deven was solemnized on 31.01.2004 and the first plaintiff was born in November, 2005. Ridhima alleges that she and her minor child were abused and assaulted in her matrimonial home by her In-laws and husband i.e. the defendants, and after one such incident on 14.07.2007 she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home. She filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the 2005 Act) before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 16.08.2007, alleging that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home, i.e. H-130, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi 110054 (hereafter, “the premises”).
3. After considering the complaint, the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in order dated, 05.09.2007, while granting relief of maintenance and compensation, declined the right to residence to the plaintiffs, in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in S.R. Batra & Anr. v. Taruna Batra (Smt.), (2007) 3 SC 169, observing that since the premises, which the complainant (Ridhima) claimed to be her matrimonial home, was held by her father-in-law and mother-in-law who had disowned her (Ridhima’s) husband, she could not claim it as her matrimonial home; thus she had no valid right to reside in the said premises. The plaintiffs impugned through an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi; Devan too, carried the matter in appeal. Ridhima’s appeal (Cr.A. 61/2007) was partly allowed. The direction to pay compensation was maintained; thus, the plaintiffs were held entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The appellate court concurred with the trial court’s findings about instances of domestic violence:
“Keeping in view all these facts I fully agree with the opinion of the ld. Trial
court that there are instances of domestic violence and therefore, the respondent is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-from the appellant under Sec. 20 and 22 of the Act.”
The matter was remitted, after which the Magistrate again denied the order enabling her to enter the premises. He however, directed payment of Rs. 42,000/-to the plaintiffs, each month, in addition to what was directed earlier, by the order dated 24-8-2008. That order was appealed against, and the appeal is pending.
4. The present suit for partition of joint family properties and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any third party rights in the said premises, etc. was filed, by the plaintiffs. In the application I.A. no. 12605/2007, the plaintiffs sought interim orders to injunct the defendants from dispossessing them (plaintiffs) from Ridhima’s matrimonial home, of which they claim to be in constructive possession since allegedly all their clothes, Ridhima’s stridhan, dowry articles, personal belongings, car, etc. are still at the premises. On 05.11.2007 this court made an interim order, whereby the defendants were directed not to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the premises. The third and fourth defendants allege that their son, Devan, was disowned by them, and that he does not own the said property, nor has he anything to do with it. In the circumstances, the plaintiffs, having lived away from the premises, and by their own showing not being in actual physical possession, could not have secured the interim orders, that they did from the court, and their being able to get into the premises, on 1-7-2009 falsifies the entire case set up in the application for injunction filed in 2007. This conduct, say the defendants, is also contumacious.
5. The defendan
