The legal point established in the judgment is that the protection against eviction or dispossession of a woman from the shared household under section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not absolute and a woman can be evicted in accordance with the procedure established by law.

ORDER/JUDGMENT : – Shri Ankur Mody, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Prakash Chandra Chandil, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2.

This appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the appellant (defendant No. 2) being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 30-10-2013 passed by the Court of II Additional District Judge, District Morena in Civil Suit No. 17A/2008 titled as Smt. Geeta Bhadoria vs. Jitendra Singh Sikarwar and Smt. Usha Bhadoria whereby, the suit has been decreed for possession against the appellant (defendant No. 2).

2. On perusal of the pleadings, relevant factual matrix of the case is that the respondent/plaintiff herein purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 27-2-2008 from its owner namely Sujan Singh, Shailendra Singh and Surendra Singh sons of Tej Singh. Shailendra Singh is the husband of the present appellant (defendant No. 2). After purchase of the property the present respondent No. 1/plaintiff initially filed a civil suit against the present appellant and proforma respondent No. 2 for eviction under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the basis of the default and sub-letting. The appellant in her written statement denied the landlord tenant relationship whereupon the plaintiff amended the plaint to the effect that she is entitled for possession on the basis of title and ownership also. The present appellant/defendant No. 2 came out with the assertion that on the basis of the partition deed, executed on 16-7-2003, between the family members of the appellant she has become the owner of the property and thus her husband and other family members have no right to alienate the suit property to the plaintiff. The partition has been admitted by the husband in an affidavit filed by him in a civil suit under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act presented by the appellant. Thus, the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff is null and void. It was further contended by the appellant that after filing of the written statement the amendment application of the plaintiff was allowed, changing the nature of the suit, which was not permissible under law.

3. During trial compromise has been arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1.

4. As many as 13 issues were framed by the trial Court and after recording of the evidence of both the sides the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30-10-2013 came to the conclusion that the ground of eviction under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 have not been proved, however, the suit was decreed for possession on the basis of title and ownership of the plaintiff.

5. Being aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, this appeal has been filed by the defendant No. 2.

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the sides and perused the material made available on record.

7. Shri Ankur Mody, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant, being the legally wedded wife of one of the owners of the suit property, is residing in the same. Consequent upon the matrimonial dispute, only with an object to deprive the appellant from her legitimate rights to reside in the shared household property the sale deed in question has been executed in collusion with the plaintiff purchaser of the property. The plaintiff is entitled to reside in the shared household property of the husband and the family members as a matter of right and she cannot be evicted as per provisions of section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The husband of the plaintiff and other family members were not entitled to alienate the shared household property without making suitable arrangement for residence to the plaintiff. In the wake of matrimonial dispute various litigation were/are pending before the execution of the sale deed in question, which clearly indicate that the sale deed in question has been ostensibly executed only to frustrate the rights of the appellant. The