SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(P&H) 3285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
Varinder Kaur – Appellant
Vs.
Jitender Kumar – Respondent
RSA No. 4398 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 21-10-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Damanbir Singh Sobti
For the Caveator : Gaurav Chopra

IMPORTANT POINT
Domestic Violence – Daughter in law cannot claim right to live in the house of the parents in law against their wishes.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, S.12 – Shared Household – House in question is self acquired property of father in law – Daughter in law cannot claim right to live in the house of the parents in law against their wishes.

       (B) Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, S.4 – Maintenance to daughter-in-law – Maintenance of wife is the personal obligation of the husband such an obligation cannot be satisfied from the self-acquired property of the parents of the husband – During subsistence of marriage maintenance of a married wife is a personal obligation on the part of husband – Such an obligation can be met from the properties of the husband out of joint properties – The properties shown exclusively in the name of parents cannot be subject matter of any attachment or enforcement of any right of maintenance of wife against her husband. (Para 27)

JUDGMENT :

Raj Mohan Singh, J.

Defendant No.2-Varinder Kaur has filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2016 passed by Additional District Judge Panchkula whereby both the appeals filed by the parties against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Panchkula were dismissed.

2. Brief facts as gathered from the record are that plaintiff Jitender Kumar father-in-law of the appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking direction against the defendants to vacate the first floor of House No. 737 Sector 12 Panchkula consisting of two bed rooms, one washroom, one drawing-cum-dining, kitchen along with front and rear courtyards and to hand over its vacant possession to the plaintiff. Plaintiff further sought relief of mesne profits from the defendants for use and occupation charges of the suit property @ Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till handing over the vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff. Restraint order was also sought against the defendants from letting out the suit property to any other person.

3. Plaintiff alleged that he was an old retired person from Indian Navy. He left the job in the year 2001 due to medical health problem. Plaintiff was owner of double storeyed House No.737 Sector 12 Panchkula which was his self-acquired property. Plaintiff was living on the ground floor whereas defendants were living on the first floor of the house in question. Defendant No.1 is his son, whereas defendant No.2 is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. Marriage of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 was solemnized on 08.12.2001 at Ludhiana according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was a simple marriage. A female child took birth from this wedlock on 03.09.2002 at Jindal Nursing Home, Chandigarh, who is studying in Gurukul School, Sector 20 Panchkula.

4. The relationship between defendant Nos.1 and 2 were not cordial and even not respectful towards the plaintiff and his wife. The conduct of the defendant No.2 was always been inclined towards her parents and brother. She left the company of defendant No.1 and got registered FIR No.156 dated 13.09.2005 under Sections 498, 498-A of IPC registered at Police Station Model Town Ludhiana against defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 was acquitted in the aforesaid case by the trial Court vide judgment dated 30.01.2007. After the acquittal of defendant No.1, defendant No.2 and her parents felt sorry for their past conduct and promised to reside peacefully. Defendant No.2 was shifted to the rented accommodation in Sector 20, Panchkula. After the birth of female child, plaintiff allowed the defendants to shift on the first floor of the house in the month of October 2009. Since then defendants have been residing on the first floor of the house in question.

5. Defendant No.2 again started misbehaving with plaintiff and his family members. Wife of the plaintiff died due to cardiac arrest on 26.04.2013. The plaintiff alleged the cause of death on account of misconduct of the defendant No.2. After the death of wife of the plaintiff, defendant No.2 maltreated the plaintiff and started misbehaving with him and threatened for false implication in criminal matters. Plaintiff also alleged that on the death anniversary of his wife on 15.02.2004, the parents of defendant No.2 after attending the ceremony left the place in angry mood. On 16.02.2014 at about 6.00 p.m., defendant No.2, her parents and brother along with 7-8 anti-social elements came to the house of the plaintiff and tried to mishandle him in the presence of neighbours. However, the plaintiff was rescued due to intervention of the neighbours and a DDR No.26 dated 16.02.2014 was registered at the instance of the petitioner in Police Station Sector 2 Panchkula.

6. It was further alleged that defendant No.2 was threatening the plaintiff to transfer the property in her name, otherwise she would involved the petitioner in some false criminal






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top