IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.
Jagdeepbhai Chandulal Patel - Appellant
Versus
Reshma Ruchin Patel - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 11129 of 2021
Decided On : 18-01-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226, 227 - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 3, 4, 5, 7 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - issue order/direction – injunction - Application for maintenance - Maintenance of parents and senior citizens – Whether or not she has any title or right in shared household - Held, conjoint reading of aforesaid makes it abundantly clear that "Shared household" means and include where a person aggrieved has lived at any time in domestic relationship either singly or with respondent and it may be a joint family or jointly tenanted irrespective of title or ownership of property. Further, right to reside in shared household continues till victim proves that she is a victim of domestic violence - Accordingly, respondent No. 1 herein, under provisions of Domestic Violence Act, has right to shared household - Learned senior advocate for petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 1 was also offered another suitable accommodation, however, she has not accepted such an offer - However, least is to say that, merely an offer being made to provide another suitable accommodation, cannot snatch away legitimate right of respondent No. 1 of shared household - So far as decisions relied upon by learned senior advocate for petitioner are concerned, Court deems it not to burden this judgment with elaboration in view of facts either same are being persuasive and not binding to this Court or that facts and circumstances are different – Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J.
1. Rule.
2. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad below application Exh. 16 in Family Suit No. 1097 of 2020. Application Exh. 16 was filed by the petitioner-original defendant No. 2 in Family Suit No. 1097 of 2020 inter alia praying for to issue order/directions that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein, along with minor Kashvi may remove themselves from House No. 43, Nathalal Colony, Nr. Sardar Patel Colony, Post - Navjivan Station Road, Ahmedabad (suit property) and to restrain the plaintiff by injunction from using or occupying the said property as there residence.
3. Facts in nutshell are that the petitioner is the father-in-law of the respondent No. 1 and the father of the respondent No. 2 herein. The marriage of the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 was solemnized as back as on 02.03.2017. It is pertinent to note that it was the second marriage of both the respondents after their divorce from the previous marriage. From their previous marriage, the respondent No. 1 was having a daughter namely Kashvi, whereas, the respondent No. 2 was having a son. That, after the marriage, the respondents started living in the suit property, however, on 12.03.2017 the respondent No. 2 returned to the USA and on the very same day, the respondent No. 1 also left the suit property, so as to reside at her own flat. It submitted that the respondent No. 1 never resided along with the petitioner in the absence of the respondent No. 2 and never cared for them. Even, during the visit of the respondent No. 2 to India, they used to reside at the flat owned by the respondent No. 1 at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. It is further submitted that it is only in March 2020 when the respondent No. 2 had come to India and due to Covid-19 pandemic since could not return to USA the respondents stayed in the suit property, however, in June 2020, the respondent No. 2 again left for USA in June 2020 and no sooner as he left for USA, the respondent No. 1 also left the suit property and started residing in her own flat. However, in September 2020, due to utter shock and surprise, the respondent No. 1 barged into the house of the petitioner with some people, including the lawyer, and forcefully entered the house and created a lot of ruckus and havoc for which, the petitioner had also given an application being Local Arji No. 239 of 2020 dated 05.09.2020 before the Naranpura Police Station, Ahmedabad. It is on the very same day that the respondent No. 1 also filed the suit in question i.e. Family Suit No. 2020 before the Family Court at Ahmedabad along with interim injunction application Exh. 6. The said application Exh. 6 came to be rejected vide order dated 04.03.2021. The petitioner also filed his written statement-cum-Reply-cum-injunction application Exh. 16, praying as aforesaid, which came to be dismissed by way of the impugned order, being grieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by this petition.
4. Heard, learned senior advocate Mr. Y.N. Oza with learned advocate Mr. Shashvata Shukla for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Vishal Thakkar for the respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. Jamshed Kavina for the respondent No. 2.
5. The learned senior advocate for the petitioner has heavily contended that in the case on hand, it is the respondent No. 1-wife who came to the house of the petitioner and thereafter, registered the FIR. Not only that but the respondent No. 1 went to the extent that the petitioner could not live his life peacefully. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 1 has never resided with the petitioner in the absence of the respondent No. 2 and also, never took care of the petitioner and his wife. Further, during the visit of the respondent No. 2 to India, they used to stay in the flat owned by the respondent No. 1 only. It is submitted tha
K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom and Another v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Srikumar Agencies and Others
Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja
Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
State of U.P. and others v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque and others
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & others
Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India
SupremeToday
Right of a woman to secure residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by simple expedient of securing order of eviction by adopting summary procedure under Senior Citizens Ac....
Section 3 of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to over-ride and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman s right to a shared household under Sections 17 of DV Act 200....
The duty of the Maintenance Tribunal to consider the rights of the daughter-in-law under the Act, 2005 and the need for a composite order considering the competing claims of the parties under both ac....
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.