Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KAIT, J.
Ekta Arora - Petitioner
Versus
Ajay Arora & Anr. - Respondents
Crl.M.C.No.3497/2008
Decided on : 07-08-2015
Domestic Violence - Property Rights - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 19 - Will - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - The judgment discusses the interpretation and application of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, particularly Section 19, in the context of property rights and the definition of 'shared household'. The court analyzes the legal provisions and their interpretations in the context of the Will and the rights of the parties involved, ultimately influencing the decision of the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought directions to set aside the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and restore the order passed by the Trial Court in her favor. The petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claiming rights to her matrimonial home. The Trial Court granted relief in her favor, but the decision was challenged in the Criminal Appeal, which set aside the residence order. The petitioner argued that the property in question was shared and she had rights as the wife of the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property in question did not qualify as a 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as it neither belonged to the husband nor was a joint family property. The court interpreted the Will and concluded that the petitioner had no right in the property during the lifetime of her mother-in-law, and the property would devolve upon the husband only after her death. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the decision of the Appellate Court.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the interpretation of the term 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the rights of the petitioner as the wife of the respondent in the disputed property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Will, the definition of 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the rights of the parties involved. The court concluded that the petitioner had no right in the property during the lifetime of her mother-in-law, and the property would devolve upon the husband only after her death.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the decision of the Appellate Court, setting aside the residence order, was upheld.
Suresh Kait, J.
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seeks directions whereby setting aside the impugned judgment dated 25.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi, (ASJ) in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2007 as far as order on residence is concerned. Consequently, seeks further directions to restore the order dated 29.09.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court in her favour.
2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the ‘said Act’) on the ground that she had apprehension of dispossession from her matrimonial home bearing No.A-135, Shanker Garden, Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
3. It is pertinent to note that initially the aforesaid property was in the name of father-in-law of petitioner, late Sh. Rajinder Paul Arora. During his lifetime he bequeathed the property in question by ‘Will’ dated 06.03.1987 whereby stated as under:-
“So long I am alive I shall be and remain the sole owner of all my properties whether movable and immovable and shall have full and absolute power to dispose of any of my belongings. After my death, all my properties whether moveable or immovable shall vest in my wife Mrs.Kamal Arora for her lifetime and after her death all such properties shall pass on to my son Master Ajay Arora. Neither of my daughters shall be entitled to receive any of my assets after my death. However, marriage expenses of my unmarried daughter Miss Kavita Arora shall be met with out of the estate left by me. My wife Mrs. Kamal Arora shall also have right of maintenance out of the said estate.”
4. After hearing both the parties, learned Trial Court vide order dated 29.09.2007 opined as under:-
“... Will executed by father of respondent No.1 in favour of the mother of respondent carefully, it is categorically mentioned in the Will that so long as executant is alive he shall remain sole owner of his property whether movable or immovable and she (sic) have full and absolute power to dispose of any of his belongings. After his death all his property whether movable or immovable shall vest in favour of his wife Smt.Kamal Arora for her lieftime and after her death all such property shall vest to his son Master Ajay Arora, therefore from the perusal of the Will it is itself very much clear that wife i.e. widow/mother of respondent No.1 is having only limited right in the property during her lifetime and after her death the property was automatically devolved to respondent No.1/husband of applicant. Therefore, in view of the Will the respondent No.1 is also having ownership rights in the property in question and on this ground the facts of the present case are entirely different from the facts cited in the case law. Therefore, I am of the view that case law cited above is not applicable to the facts of the present case as husband/respondent No.1 is also having rights in the property in question, hence wife is entitled to have residence orders against respondent No.1 in respect of premises in question where the applicant is residing presently. In view of my above submissions, relief No.(b) is granted in favour of the applicant and restraining the respondents from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of applicant from the portion in which she is residing presently in property in question i.e. A 135, Shanker Garden, Vikas Puri, New Delhi till final disposal of this case.”
5. Being aggrieved, respondent Nos.1 & 2, i.e., husband and mother-in-law of the petitioner respectively challenged the aforesaid order in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2007 which was allowed on the issue of residence vide impugned judgment dated 25.08.2008 by learned ASJ, while observing as under:-
“In the present case also the property No.A-135 Shanker Garden, Vikas Puri does not belong to appellant No.1. It was also not taken on rent by him nor it was a joint famil
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
