Back
2014 Supreme(P&H) 1416
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
Suman - Appellant
Versus
Tulsi Ram - Respondent
C.R. No. 6691 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-10-2014
For the Appellant :Ashok Arora, Advocate
For the Respondents:R.S. Madan, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Headnote:
Domestic Violence - Right to Reside - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 17
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a retired Principal, filed a suit for mandatory injunction against his daughter-in-law, the petitioner, alleging domestic violence and seeking her eviction from the house. The lower courts granted an ad interim mandatory injunction in favor of the respondent, directing the petitioner to vacate the house.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not have the right to reside in the shared household, as the house was exclusively owned by the respondent. The court also upheld the lower courts' decision to grant the ad interim mandatory injunction in favor of the respondent.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had the right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of 'shared household' and held that the petitioner did not have the right to reside in the house, as it was exclusively owned by the respondent. The court also considered the exceptional circumstances and upheld the grant of ad interim mandatory injunction in favor of the respondent.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it within six months.
1. The defendant is in revision, aggrieved against the order dated 10.07.2014, passed by the learned trial Court allowing an application for ad interim mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to vacate the house in question and order dated 16.08.2014 whereby her miscellaneous appeal was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. In short, the respondent is the father-in-law of the petitioner who has filed the suit for mandatory injunction alleging that he is a retired Principal from the Government Senior, Secondary School, suffering from various old age diseases and is 66 years of age, whereas his wife Roshni Devi, who is also retired as a Principal from a Government Senior Secondary School, aged 61 years, both are residing in the house in question, built up by the respondent on a plot measuring 0 kanal 10 marlas, being 10/1081 share of land comprising in khasra No. 2053/1, total measuring 54 kanal 1 marla, situated in New Dabwali which falls in the area of Municipal Committee, Dabwali, purchased by him vide sale deed No. 1303 executed on dated 12.08.1988 and registered on 16.08.1988, from his own earnings. The mutation No. 13171 dated 28.08.1988 has already been sanctioned in favour of the respondent on the basis of the sale deed No. 1303. It is also alleged that Sanjeev Kumar, husband of the petitioner, was born in the year 1979 and being a minor was not earning anything when the house was purchased and constructed in the year 1993 by the respondent. Sanjeev Kumar was employed as a JBT Teacher in Government High School, Behlana, UT, Chandigarh and was residing at Chandigarh/Panchkula. He got married with the petitioner on 09.05.2005 at Adampur Mandi, District Hisar. The petitioner was employed as JBT Teacher in Government Primary School, Kishangarh, Barwala, District Hisar and soon after the marriage, she was transferred from Government Primary School, Kishangarh to Government Primary School, Billah, District Panchkula.
2. It is further alleged that the petitioner used to torture Sanjeev Kumar mentally and physically as a result thereof he was compelled to resign from his job at Chandigarh, which was a pensionable job, and joined as a JBT Teacher in Haryana in the year 2011 in village Maujgarh, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, which is a non-pensionable job. He had lost all benefits of his previous job, i.e. 9 years of his valuable pensionable service It is also alleged that since January 2011, Sanjeev Kumar is residing at village Maujgarh in the rented house owned by Bharat Lal and now in the house of Rajinder Kumar, whereas the petitioner resided alone in House No. 1123, Sector-4, Panchkula and, thereafter, she is residing in House No. 1608, Sector-4, Panchkula and working as JBT Teacher in Government Primary School, Haripur, Sector-4, Panchkula. The petitioner was blessed with a girl child, namely, Vanshika, to whom she refused to look after and hence, Sanjeev Kumar brought his daughter at Maujgarh and got her admitted in Modem Montessory School at Dabwali.
3. It is alleged that the petitioner tried to forcibly enter the house of the respondent with the help of her family members on 14.06.2013 and also got registered a false FIR No. 187, under Sections 498-A/323/34 IPC at Police Station City Dabwali against the respondent, his wife Roshni Devi and son Sanjeev Kumar. After lodging the FIR, the petitioner took away Vanshika from the house of Sanjeev Kumar. On 25.07.2013, the petitioner along with some hired persons entered the house of the respondent forcibly and since then she is residing therein and when the respondent asked the petitioner to vacate the house, she had threatened to commit suicide and to involve the family of the respondent in some other false criminal case. It is further alleged that the petitioner had filed a suit for mandatory injunction titled as "Suman v. Sub Divisional Officer (O.P.), DHBVNL, Mandi Dabwali" for installation of an electric meter in the house of the respondent in w
