SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Del) 1098

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
DR. KAVITA CHAUDHRI
versus
MS. EVENEET SINGH & ANR
EX.P. 180/2011 & EA No. 197/2012
Decided On : 25.4.2012

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Advocate With Mr. Ankur Adv.
Ms. Shobhna Takiyar for respondent 1 Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Jatin Sehgal for respondent no.2

Headnote:

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 17 - Right of residence - Order of the court to vacate the room occupied in the house of mother in law as alternate rented accommodation provided by the husband - House belonging to mother in law vacated by husband who was living in a rented property, is not shared household - Warrant of possession, directed to be issued to recover the possession of room.

JUDGMENT

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. By this execution petition filed under Order XXI, the decree holder seeks execution of the orders dated 20.12.2010 and 29.4.2011 passed by this Court in CS(OS) No. 505/2010 and CS(OS) No.1307/2010 by issuance of warrants of possession in respect of one room in possession of judgment debtor as shown in red colour in the site plan forming part of the property bearing No. D-32, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi.

2. Before dealing with the merits of the present petition and the opposition thereto by the judgment debtor No.1, it is necessary to give a brief background which led to the passing of the said two orders. A civil suit i.e. CS(OS) No. 505/2010 was filed by Dr. Kavita Chaudhri to seek a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction against her son, the defendant no.2 herein and defendant No.1, her daughter-in-law directing them to vacate the premises under their occupation forming part of property bearing No. D-32, South Extension Part II, New Delhi and restraining them to enter the said premises or to cause any kind of harassment to the plaintiff. The other suit i.e. CS(OS) No. 1307/2010 was filed by the said daughter-in-law i.e. Ms. Eveneet Singh for declaration, maintenance, residence and mandatory injunction under Sections 18 and 23 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and impleading therein her husband as defendant no.1, and her mother-in-law as defendant no.2. The marriage of defendant no.1 (Prashant Vijay) and defendant no.2 (Eveneet Singh) was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies on 27.4.2009 and after her marriage, Ms. Eveneet Singh started residing at her matrimonial home i.e. premises bearing No. D-32, South Extension Part II, New Delhi. However, within a short span of time, serious differences arose between the parties due to which the defendant no.2 moved out of the said premises and started residing in a rented accommodation i.e. premises bearing no. C-528, nd Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The plaintiff who was a heart patient also complained harassment at the hands of her defendant no.1 Eveneet Singh and being the owner of the house bearing No. D32, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi filed the said suit to claim a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction primarily to seek ouster of defendant no.1. The daughter-in-law, on the other hand, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 17th March, 2010 besides taking steps to file the said civil suit to claim decree of maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and one of the prime reliefs being sought by her is to declare the ground floor of the property bearing No. D-32, South Extension Part II, New Delhi as her sole and exclusive property. Two separate applications were filed by the threspective parties in the said two suits and vide order dated December, 2010 both the applications were disposed of by this court giving certain directions. Vide order dated 29th April,2011 in I.A. No. 1401/2011 filed under Section 151 CPC in CS(OS) No. 1307/2010 the said order dated 20.12.2010 was further clarified by this Court. The decree holder is now seeking execution of the said two orders passed by this court in the present execution petition.

3) The present execution petition was opposed by the judgment debtor primarily on two grounds; first that the said orders dated 20th December, 2010 and 29th April, 2011 are not in the nature of a decree executable in terms of Order XXI CPC and secondly that her husband has not secured the same level of alternative accommodation for the judgment debtor as is being enjoyed by her in the matrimonial home in terms of Section 19(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and until such an accommodation is made available commensurate to the status of the wife any order passed by this court in the present execution case seeking eviction of the judgment debtor from the premises in que




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top