Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
PURINMA SAHNI - Petitioner
Versus
RATI SAHNI & ANR. - Respondents
CRL.M.C. 5361/2014
Decided On : 07-09-2016
Domestic Violence - Protection of Women - 2005 - Section 29 - Section 2(s) - Section 19(1)(a)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law over the shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. The daughter-in-law sought re-entry into the house owned by the mother-in-law, claiming it as a shared household.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the concept of a shared household under the Act and the rights of a wife in such a household. It found that the daughter-in-law's claim did not align with the legislative intent of protecting the existing right of an estranged wife and her right of residence.
Issues: The key issue was whether the disputed property qualified as a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the scope of 'shared household' and the rights of a wife within such a household under the Act. It emphasized the legislative intent to protect the existing right of an estranged wife and her right of residence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the appellant to take custody and possession of the goods from the disputed room.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
Crl.M.A.No.439/2016 (Impleadment of State as R-3)
Allowed.
Crl.M.C.No.5361/2014
1. The fight is between the petitioner and respondent No.1 who share the relationship of mother-in-law – daughter-in-law.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is to the order dated September 06, 2014 dismissing appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 against the orders dated July 18, 2013 and December 18, 2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
3. Vide order dated July 18, 2013 respondent No.1 was allowed to re-enter house No.K-76 Kirti Nagar, New Delhi owned by the petitioner. A Protection Officer was appointed to facilitate the re-entry. Vide order dated December 18, 2013, order dated July 18, 2013 was not recalled. The appellate order affirms the said two orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
4. It is the common case of the litigating parties that the son of the appellant got married to respondent No.1 on November 28, 2002 and the couple migrated to Canada on September 02, 2008. As and when the couple came to India in the year 2009 and the year 2012 they stayed at the house of the appellant being the ground floor of K-76 Kirti Nagar, New Delhi which belonged to Smt. Gomti Sahni, the mother-in-law of the appellant and was the house where the appellant was residing with her mother-in-law.
5. Disputes and differences arose between the first respondent and her husband in Canada. The husband of the first respondent sought divorce. The first respondent submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court in Canada. She lodged a counter claim. As per the pleadings of respondent No.1 in the Court at Canada it emerges that she resides with her husband in the same house in Edomonton. The first respondent came to India firstly on February 10, 2013 and then on July 13, 2013. She filed the petition before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate which resulted in the order dated July 18, 2013 being passed. On the strength of the said order she entered the ground floor and took possession of a room on July 19, 2013, and since then there is hell in the house. The appellant who is the mother-in-law of respondent No.1 and even the mother-in-law of the appellant claim that they are on the receiving end.
6. Executing a Power of Attorney in favour of her father to prosecute the proceedings initiated by her, the order dated December 18,2013 shows that the first respondent informed the Court and went to Canada.
7. The question would be that under the circumstances could it be held that the ground floor of premises bearing Municipal No.K-76 Kirti Nagar, New Delhi is the shared household of the couple.
8. In the decision reported as 213 (2014) Delhi Law Times 611 (DB) Navneet Arora v. Surender Kaur & Ors., relevant facts were that the husband of Surender Kaur : Harpal Singh Arora, was the owner of the ground floor of property bearing municipal No. B-44, Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Surender Kaur and Harpal Singh Arora had three children : Gurpreet Singh, Raman Pal Singh and Sherry. In due course of time, all three children got married. Gurpreet Singh married Navneet Arora. Raman Pal Singh married Neetu Singh. The two couple lived together with Surender Kaur and Harpal Singh Arora in the ground floor of B-44, Vishal Enclave; sharing a common kitchen. Upon the intestate death of Harpal Singh in the year 2008, his wife Surender Kaur and their three children inherited one fourth share each in the estate of Harpal Singh. On June 13, 2008 the children of Surender Kaur executed a relinquishment deed in her favor, whereby Surender Kaur became the sole owner of the property in question. However, the Gurpreet Singh and Raman Pal Singh along with their wives, continued to reside with their mother in the ground floor of the property.
9. After the death of Gurpreet Singh on May 20, 2012, the relationship between Surender Kaur and Navneet Kaur soured. As a consequence, Sur
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
