MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT

1. This judgment will dispose of applications in two suits. The plaintiff in CS (OS) 505/2010 (hereafter “Kavita”, and “eviction suit”) seeks mandatory injunction against her son, Prashant and daughter-in-law, Eveneet (referred to hereafter by their names) to prohibit them from occupying the premises located at D-32, South Extension Part II, New Delhi, (referred to as “the suit premises”, in the eviction suit, as well as in the other suit CS(OS) 1307/2010, -which would be called “the maintenance suit”) on the ground that she is its sole owner and that they are merely licensees. Eveneet instituted the maintenance suit, under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Hereinafter, “Maintenance Act”), against Prashant and mother-in-law, Kavita Chaudhari seeking maintenance and right of residence in the suit premises.

2. Prashant and Eveneet got married on 27.04.2009. Eveneet alleges that the defendants in the maintenance suit, Prashant and Kavita, were unhappy with the gifts they received and were pressurizing her for a greater amount of dowry. A complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Hereinafter, “the Domestic Violence Act”), was also filed by Eveneet, against the said defendants, on 17.03.2010. Eveneet contends that suit premises not solely owned by Kavita, and that it is HUF property as per the will of her (Kavitas) deceased father. According to the probate petition too, she only claimed half of the property. It is also alleged by her that the eviction suit was filed by Kavita in collusion with Prashant, to put up a façade of her ownership, to oust her (Eveneet) from it. She also alleges that Prashant started living in rented premises in Defence Colony, New Delhi in order to show that the suit premises belong solely to Kavita. Eveneet seeks a right of residence in the property, which she states, is the “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act. She also seeks maintenance, including ad-interim maintenance, of `200000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs) per month, commensurate with the means of Prashant, and the lifestyle she is accustomed to. She asserts that Prashant has concealed his actual means from the Court and that she is actually entitled to a higher amount of compensation. I.A. 8479/10, 8480/10 in CS(OS)1307/2010 & IA 3577/10 in CS(OS) 505/2010 Page 2

3. Kavita and Prashant, in their written statement (in the maintenance suit) contend that the suit premises are exclusively owned by the former, and are not HUF or Joint Family property; it was bequeathed to Kavita by her father. They refute allegations of collusion between themselves, in the filing of the eviction suit. It is stated that Eveneet and Prashant stayed in the suit premises, as permissive licensees, and that Prashant was asked to move out with his wife, Eveneet, by Kavita, when their matrimonial relations became acrimonious. This revocation of license was legal and justified, as Kavita is owner of the property, and is aged, infirm and unable to bear the daily acrimony between her son and daughter-in-law. Pursuant to such revocation, Prashant moved out of the property and started living in rented premises in Defence Colony, New Delhi, but Eveneet refused to move in with him. The defendants in the maintenance suit (Kavita and Prashant) also point out that no modification or change was made to the documents pertaining to the title of the property in any way, during of before the proceedings and therefore, taking rented premises does not indicate any collusion on their part. They rely upon the Supreme Court judgment in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 (hereinafter “Batra”) for the proposition that the plaintiff Eveneet does not have any right to residence in the property, as her mother-in-law, Kavita is its sole owner, and her husband, Prashant, has no right, share, title or interest in it. They further state that the plaintiff has sufficient means and has suppressed facts as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document