The right to residence under the DV Act is not indefeasible, and the pendency of proceedings under the DV Act is not an embargo for initiating or continuing civil proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. -

Cm No.8407/2021 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM(M) 179/2021 & CM No.8406/2021

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-03 (South-East), Saket Courts in suit, being CS No.792/2017, filed by the respondent no.1 herein, calling upon the respondent no. 1 to file an application offering alternate accommodation to the petitioner.

2. The suit has been filed by the respondent no. 1 against the petitioner and the respondent no.2 seeking inter-alia a decree of Mandatory Injunction directing the petitioner herein to remove herself from the first floor of the property bearing No.D-1077, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025.

3. By the order dated 08.04.2019, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent no.1 herein under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court. This Court vide its judgment and order dated 18.12.2019, passed in a batch of appeals, inter-alia passed the following directions:

"56. In these circumstances, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. The matters are remanded back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with the directions given hereinbelow:

(i) At the first instance, in all cases where the respondent's son/the appellant's husband has not been impleaded, the trial Court shall direct his impleadment by invoking its suo motu powers under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

(ii) The trial Court will then consider whether the appellant had made any unambiguous admission about the respondent's ownership rights in respect of the suit premises; if she has and her only defence to being dispossessed therefrom is her right of residence under the DV Act, then the trial Court shall, before passing a decree of possession on the sole premise of ownership rights, ensure that in view of the subsisting rights of the appellant under the DV Act, she is provided with an alternate accommodation as per Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, which will continue to be provided to her till the subsistence of her matrimonial relationship.

(iii) In cases where the appellant specifically disputes the exclusive ownership rights of the respondents over the suit premises notwithstanding the title documents in their favour, the trial Court, while granting her an opportunity to lead evidence in support of her claim, will be entitled to pass interim orders on applications moved by the respondents, directing the appellant to vacate the suit premises subject to the provision of a suitable alternate accommodation to her under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, which direction would also be subject to the final outcome of the suit.

(iv) While determining as to whether the appellant's husband or the in-laws bears the responsibility of providing such alternate accommodation to the appellant, if any, the trial Court may be guided by paragraph 46 of the decision in Vinay Verma (supra).

(v) The trial Court shall ensure that adequate safeguards are put in place to ensure that the direction for alternate accommodation is not rendered meaningless and that a shelter is duly secured for the appellant, during the subsistence of her matrimonial relationship.

(vi) This exercise of directing the appellant to vacate the suit premises by granting her alternate accommodation will be completed expeditiously and not later than 6 months from today."

4. The said judgment was carried in Appeal by the respondent no.1 before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2483/2020. The Supreme Court vide its judgment and order dated 15.10.2020 was pleased to dispose of the appeal inter-alia holding as under:

"83. Before we close our discussion on Section 2(s), we need to observe that the right to residence under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged fathe