DELHI HIGH COURT
Kailash Gambhir, J.
Barun Kumar Nahar - Appellant
Versus
Parul Nahar & Anr. - Resopndent
CS(OS) 2795/2011
Decided On : 05-02-2013
Mandatory Injunction - Property Dispute - Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: S.R. Batra and Anr. v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169; Kavita Chaudhari v. Eveneet Singh and Anr., 2012 (130) DRJ 83; Neetu Mittal v. Kanta Mittal, 152 (2008) DLT 691; Umesh Sharma v. State, 2010 (115) DRJ 88; Kulwant Singh v. Laljee Kent( DR.) and ors., 162 (2009) DLT 625; Shumita Didi Sandhu v. Sanjay SinghnSandhu and ors., 174 (2010) DLT 79 (DB) - The court discussed the right of a daughter-in-law in a shared household under Section 17(1) of the DV Act, and held that she has no right to reside in the property owned by her parents-in-law. The court also emphasized that the right of residence for a wife is against the husband and not against the parents-in-law. The judgment also highlighted the need to consider the financial status of the husband in deciding the right to residence for the wife.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a father-in-law, filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against his daughter-in-law, seeking her eviction from the property. The plaintiff claimed to be the sole owner of the property and alleged continuous harassment and abuse by the daughter-in-law, causing distress to him and his wife, who were senior citizens suffering from various ailments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the daughter-in-law had no legal right to reside in the property owned by her father-in-law, as it did not qualify as a shared household under the Domestic Violence Act. The court also considered the age and health condition of the plaintiff and his wife, emphasizing the need for a peaceful living environment for them.
Issues: The main issue was whether the daughter-in-law had a legal right to reside in the property owned by her father-in-law and whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the right of residence for a daughter-in-law in a shared household under Section 17(1) of the DV Act, emphasizing that the right is against the husband and not against the parents-in-law. The court also considered the financial status of the husband in deciding the right to residence for the wife.
Final Decision: The court granted an interim mandatory injunction in favor of the plaintiff, directing the daughter-in-law to vacate the property and hand over peaceful possession to the plaintiff within a specified period. The court also directed the concerned court to decide the daughter-in-law's maintenance application within a specified period, considering her right to a residence in a commensurate property based on the financial status of her husband.
Kailash Gambhir, J.—
IA No. 17986/11 (O. 39 Rule 1 &2 of CPC)
1. By this order I propose to decide the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1&2 read with Section 151 of CPC.
2. Before I deal with the rival contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to give brief summary of the facts of the present case. The plaintiff herein is a father-in-law of the defendant no.1 and father of defendant no.2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. A decree of mandatory injunction has been sought by the plaintiff to direct the defendant no.1 to vacate the premises bearing No. B-197, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi, while a decree of permanent injunction has been sought by the plaintiff so as to restrain the defendant no.1, her parents, agents, representatives, assignees, associates etc. from creating disturbance in the peaceful possession and occupation of the plaintiff’s self-acquired property bearing no. B-197, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi. In prayer Para (b) instead of claiming permanent injunction the plaintiff has wrongly claimed mandatory injunction and such inadvertent mistake on the part of the plaintiff can be ignored.
3. The main allegation of the plaintiff in the present suit is that he is the sole and absolute owner of the property bearing no. B-197, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi consisting of ground and first floor. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the said property was purchased by him vide sale deed dated 10.8.1971 through his own funds and since then the plaintiff and his wife are residing in the same property.
It is also the case of the plaintiff that he and his wife aged around 80 years and 74 years respectively are suffering from various old age ailments. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 is of a very violent nature and she has made the life of the plaintiff and his wife a living hell. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 is having matrimonial discord with her husband, defendant no.2, herein and the plaintiff and his wife are being subjected to suffer at the hands of the defendant no.1 because of such matrimonial dispute between the spouses.
It is also the case of the plaintiff that he and his wife are living on the ground floor premises and the defendant no.2 being the son of the plaintiff was occupying the first floor of the premises as a licensee. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 being the wife of defendant no.2 was also using the first floor until the relations between the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 became edgy. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 was having extra marital affair with servant Shambhu and the relationship between the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 turned embittered after the discovery of the said extra marital affair . It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 left the house and she had also executed an affidavit stating her separation from her husband, i.e. defendant no. 2 herein. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the right of the defendant no.1 to live as wife of defendant no.2 got terminated in terms of the affidavit dated 18.10.2010. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the temporary stay of the defendant no.1 as a guest on the first floor of the premises since March 2011 does not give her any right to occupy the said premises as her statutory right to occupy the premises was by virtue of her being a wife of defendant no.2 with whom her relationship is claimed to be terminated w.e.f. 18.10.2010. It is also the case of the plaintiff that in the first week of August 2011, defendant no.1 had assaulted and pushed the wife of the plaintiff after which she fell on the floor and injured herself. It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 misbehaves, beats and abuses the domestic staff and because of such demeanor by the defendant no.1
B.P. Achala Anand v. S. Appi Reddy and another (2005) 3 SCC 313
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and others v. Prem Chand Premi and another (2005) 13 SCC 505
Davender lal Mehta v. Sh. Dharmender Mehta and Anr. AIR 2009 DELHI 189 2009(110) DRJ 287
Dorab Cawashji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990) 2 SCC 117
Indore Development Authority v. Mangal Amusement P. Ltd. (2010) 12 SCC 514
Kavita Chaudhari v. Eveneet Singh and Anr. 2012 (130) DRJ 83
Kulwant Singh v. Laljee Kent( DR.) and Ors. 162 (2009) DLT 625
Nandan Pictures Ltd. v. Art. Pictures Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1956 Cal 428
Neetu Mittal v. Kanta Mittal 152 (2008) DLT 691 : 2008 (106) DRJ 623
Purshottam Vishandas Raheja and another v. Shrichand Vishandas Raheja (2011) 6 SCC 73
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.R.s v. Jaggannath (Dead) by L.R.s and others (1994) 1 SCC 1
S.R. Batra and Anr. v. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169 : 2007 (93) DRJ 405[SC]
Sant lal Jain v. Avtar Singh (1985) 2 SCC 332
Shumita Didi Sandhu v. Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors. 174 (2010) DLT 79 (DB)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.