Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
MEENU - Appellant
versus
BIRMA DEVI - Respondent
RSA 14 of 2017
Decided on : 14-02-2017
Jurisdiction - Family Matters - Property Dispute - Family Court Act, 1984, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - 7, 17(1) - [Order XII Rule 6 CPC, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Family Court Act, 1984]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenges the decree for possession of a property issued by the Trial Court, claiming lack of jurisdiction due to family matters and the applicability of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondent, a mother-in-law, permitted the appellant and her son to temporarily reside in her self-acquired property, but later sought their eviction due to harassment and threats.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the daughter-in-law had no legal right to occupy the self-acquired property of her mother-in-law, as it did not qualify as a 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court upheld the decree for possession in favor of the respondent.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Civil Court in family matters, applicability of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and ownership of the disputed property.
Ratio Decidendi: The daughter-in-law has no legal right to reside in the self-acquired property of her mother-in-law, as it does not qualify as a 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed, and the decree for possession in favor of the respondent is upheld.
1. The appellant has filed this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure impugning the concurrent findings of the Courts below i.e. order dated 01st October, 2016 passed by the First Appellate Court and order dated 23rd May, 2016 passed by learned Trial Court. The appellant has questioned the legality and validity of the order of the learned Trial Court dated 23rd May, 2016 whereby a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for possession in respect of property House No.235, Khasra No.60, Near MCD School, Sabha Pur, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094 has been passed against her by the learned Trial Court and she has been directed to vacate the suit property and also restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed the brief written synopsis and has also made oral submissions raising the following contentions:
(i) The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the family matters between the parties as per Section 7 and other provisions of the Family Court Act, 1984.
(ii) The Civil Court cannot overwrite the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
(iii) The Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain a suit in respect of a property falling in revenue estate of Sabha Pur, Shahdara which is an urbanized village.
3. With a view to appreciate the various contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to refer to the pleadings of the parties.
4. Civil Suit No.271/2013 was filed by Smt.Birma Devi, respondent herein against the appellant Smt.Meenu, her daughter-in-law and Sh.Anil, her son (husband of defendant No.1). In this appeal (in this RSA No.14/2017) the appellant Meenu has not impleaded her husband as a party.
5. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that on 28th December, 2005 she purchased House No.A-235 (measuring 50 sq. yds.), situated in Khasra No.60, near MCD School, Sabha Pur, Karawal, Delhi. At the time of purchase, the vendor Sh.Govardhan executed irrevocable General Power of Attorney in her favour which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar on 17th March, 2006. The marriage of the appellant (defendant No.2 in civil suit) with the son of the respondent/plaintiff was solemnized on 18th February, 2013. She started residing at House No.G-396, West Karawal Nagar, New Delhi with her husband and in-laws. However, since the son and daughter-in-law started harassing the respondent/plaintiff and her husband, she permitted them to shift temporarily to the House No.A-235, situated at Khasra No.60, near MCD School, Sabha Pur, Karawal, Delhi i.e. the suit property, for a period of one year.
6. After shifting to the said house her son and daughter-in-law started pressurizing her to transfer the said house in the name of the daughter-in-law. On her refusal they even threatened to implicate her in dowry demand case and stopped paying the electricity bills. Even a criminal complaint was filed against her (mother-in-law) and the daughter-in-law also threatened to commit suicide with the sole motive to pressurize her to transfer the said property, which is her (mother-in-law) self-acquired property, in her (daughter-in-law) name. When the complaints were filed by the daughter-in-law with CAW Cell, North-East, she (mother-in-law) was compelled to issue public notice severing all her relations with her son and daughter-in-law. Even legal notice was served by her asking her son and daughter-in-law to vacate the suit property and also to pay use and occupation charges.
7. After the written statement was filed by the appellant/defendant, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit and granted the relief of possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on the admissions made in the written statement.
8. The First Appellate Court on analyzing the legal position about the rights of daughter-in-law in the self acquired property of father
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
