Back
High Court of Delhi
SURESH KAIT, J.
Kavita Dass
Versus
NCT Of Delhi & Another
Crl.M.C. Nos.4282 & 4283 OF 2011 & Crl. M.A. No. 19670 & 19672 OF 2011 (stay)
Decided On : 17-04-2012
Domestic Violence Act - Shared Household - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - [SHARED HOUSEHOLD] - [MARRIAGE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE] - [Section 448 IPC, Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act, Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, Section 441 of IPC, Section 442 of IPC] - The court discussed the concept of a shared household under the Domestic Violence Act and its interpretation as per Section 2(s) of the Act. It also highlighted the rights of a wife in a shared household and the legal provisions related to house trespass under Section 448 of the IPC. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the shared household concept and the rights of the aggrieved person under the Domestic Violence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR and set aside an order related to a domestic violence case. The petitioner and respondent were married, but the respondent abandoned the petitioner and obtained an eviction order against her. The petitioner sought relief under the Domestic Violence Act and faced legal proceedings related to house trespass under the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the house in question was not a shared household as per the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. It also concluded that the petitioner had no right to forcefully enter the premises. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order for the registration of the FIR under Section 448 of the IPC.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the concept of a shared household, the rights of the aggrieved person under the Domestic Violence Act, and the application of house trespass provisions under the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the shared household concept under the Domestic Violence Act and the application of house trespass provisions under the IPC. It emphasized the rights of the aggrieved person and the limitations on entering the premises forcefully.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and quashed the FIR along with all emanating proceedings.
SURESH KAIT, J:
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose of both the above mentioned petitions.
2. The petitioner has sought to quash FIR No.157 dated 07.12.2011 registered under Section 448 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS. Defence Colony, New Delhi against petitioner/wife and to set aside order dated 28.11.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket District Courts, New Delhi in Appeal CA No.35/11 in case titled „Kavita Dass Vs Ranjit Dass?.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got married to respondent No.2 on 26.12.1975 at Delhi. After marriage, the petitioner and respondent No.2 lived together in abroad (Sri Lanka and Australia) as husband and wife for 12 long years. Two sons were born out of the said wedlock in 1978 and 1981 respectively. The elder son Rajad Das is married and settled in London while the younger son has been living in Delhi.
4. In 1992, the respondent No.2 acquired a license to start his own company in the name & style of „Forex Company?. Accordingly, the couple came back to India and started living in a rented accommodation bearing address C-293, Defence Colony, New Delhi. During their stay in India, the respondent No.2 came in contact with another woman, a spinster and fell in love with her. This was a flash point in the relationship. All efforts were made by the petitioner to convince the respondent No.2 to give up the illicit liaison with another woman, however, failed.
5. The situation further became worst. The respondent No.2 as a part of a well planned act, sometime in July, 2009 left the premises C-293, Defence Colony, New Delhi and abandoned the petitioner/wife. Thereafter, respondent No.2 in connivance with the then landlord, got an eviction order in a suit filed against himself as well as the petitioner/wife. The aforesaid suit for eviction was decided ex parte in favour of the then landlord, accordingly, petitioner was forced to leave the shared household, i.e. C-293, Defence Colony, New Delhi on 25.08.2010.
6. After the eviction, the petitioner was literally came on road and was forced to take shelter at her brother-in-law?s house at C-52, Defence Colony, New Delhi. Petitioner stayed there from 25.08.2011 till 16.04.2011. Around July, 2009, the respondent No.2 after abandoning the petitioner filed a divorce petition bearing No.1079/2009 against her which is pending before Ld. Additional District Judge, Saket District Courts, New Delhi.
7. In addition to the divorce petition, the respondent No. 2, around September, 2009 coerced and virtually cajoled the petitioner to sign an out of court memorandum of understanding (MOU) by absolutely fraudulent means of representation, wherein, the respondent No. 2 had stated that he would pay the permanent alimony of Rs.45lacs to the petitioner against a divorce by mutual consent.
8. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid MOU, the respondent No. 2 filed a petition for divorce and dissolution of marriage on the basis of mutual consent, however, till date not even the first motion has taken place as the petitioner realized that her signatures on the MOU were obtained by fraudulent representations. As such she did not act upon the said MOU being well within her rights to do so.
9. The petitioner was compelled and constrained to approach trial court with complaint filed under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, seeking interim measures and interim relief in accordance with provisions of the said Act and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court vide interim order dated 10.09.2010 directed the respondent No. 2 to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-to the petitioner as an interim maintenance, as well as monthly rent of Rs.25,000/-from the date of petitioner?s eviction from the then shared household.
10. Subsequently, the petitioner in the month of April, 2011 came to know that the respondent No. 2 had taken another premises bearing address D-12, Defence Colony, New Delhi on rent. Accordingly, on 17.04.2011
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
