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

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.
Hamina Kang —Petitioner
versus
District Magistrate (U.T.), Chandigarh & Ors. —Respondents
CWP No.18009 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided on 25.1.2016

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Dr.P.K.Sekhon, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.2 & 3:Mr.M.L.Saggar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gaurav Grover, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
House owned by father-in-law of petitioner is not a “shared household” in which petitioner has any right of residence which can be enforced under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Headnote:(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007—Sections 21 and 22—Chandigarh Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009—Rule 19—Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Section 12—Direction to vacate house—Allegations regarding harassment and victimization levelled by petitioner against respondents—There is no requirement for parents to be a citizen of India—A senior citizen is a person who is a citizen of India and is of age of sixty years or more—A person who is a parent would be entitled to benefits of the Act which are conferred on parents, irrespective of his age or nationality—Apparent state of affairs shall be taken as real state of affairs—It is not for an owner of property to establish that it is his self-acquired property—Onus would be on one who pleads otherwise—Existence of a joint family does not lead to presumption that property held by any member of family is joint and burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property was joint to establish the fact. (Paras 16, 17, 40 and 41)

       (B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Section 12—Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007—Sections 21 and 22—Chandigarh Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009—Rule 19—Right to residence in shared household—Direction to vacate house—Allegations regarding harassment and victimization levelled by petitioner against respondents—If a woman along with her husband had stayed in a particular house either belonging to her mother-in-law or father-in-law after her marriage and if marriage was arranged by parents, it could be treated as a ‘shared household’ giving wife right to residence—House in question which is owned by father-in-law of petitioner is not a “shared household” in which petitioner has any right of residence which can be enforced under 2005 Act—However, petitioner is not helpless—She has sufficient means of her own, besides provision being made by her husband—Husband of petitioner is employed at Bangalore—It is always open to petitioner to claim her rights against him—Petitioner directed to vacate house within one month from today—Respondents would be held bound to their offer to pay sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month to petitioner for one year. (Paras 42, 55, 57, 71 and 72)

       Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions.

JUDGMENT

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.—This petition has been filed praying for directions to quash the order dated 6.8.2015 passed by respondent No.1 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “2007 Act”) directing the petitioner to vacate house No.112 , Sector 9-B, Chandigarh within ten days from the passing of this order.

2. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of respondents No.2 and 3, being the wife of their son Kanwar Bir Singh Kang. The petitioner was married to Kanwar Bir Singh Kang on 3.5.1992 in accordance with Sikh rites. The marriage was registered on 11.5.1992 with the Registrar of Marriages, UT Chandigarh. After marriage, the petitioner stayed for some time at the matrimonial home i.e. H.No.112, Sector 9, Chandigarh. Thereafter the petitioner and her husband alongwith respondents No.2 and 3 (who are U.S. Citizens) went to the United States of America. While in the U.S, three daughters were born to the petitioner, namely Amber Kang, (aged about 19 years), Summer Kang (aged about 15 years) and Joon Kang (aged about 15 years). In the year 2005 the husband of the petitioner who was working in a multinational company in the U.S. , got posted in India. Along with him, the petitioner and her three daughters also shifted to India. Since then the petitioner is residing in rear portion of H.No.112, Sector 9, Chandigarh which is a six kanal house. The petitioner claims to have spent considerable amount in furnishing the house.

3. Respondent No. 2 and 3 who had been residing in U.S.A came to India in November, 2014. It is alleged that due to differences between the petitioner and her husband, respondent no.2 started harassing the petitioner so as to compel her to leave the matrimonial house, regarding which the petitioner filed a complaint to the police on 5.11.2014. After spending some days in Chandigarh, in November 2014, respondent No.2 went back to USA. Respondents No.2 and 3 again came to India in the month of April 2015, where after the harassment and humiliation of the petitioner resumed regarding which she filed complaints Annexure P-4 to P-6.

4. Apprehending ouster from the matrimonial home, the petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred to as the “2005 Act”) before Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh on 27.4.2015 against respondents 2 and 3 alleging that after coming to India, they have, in connivance with their son (husband of the petitioner), started harassing and humiliating the petitioner with a view to forcibly dispossess her from her matrimonial home. Learned JMIC, Chandigarh vide order dated 28.4.2015 directed that the petitioner be not dispossessed from H.No.112, Sector 9-B, Chandigarh till the next date. Thereafter, the order has been continued from time to time and status quo regarding possession has been directed to be maintained.

5. It is alleged that as a counter blast to the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner, respondents No.2 and 3 filed CWP No.9021 of 2015 praying for direction to the police of U.T. Chandigarh to protect their life and liberty at the hands of the petitioner and her mother. During pendency of this writ petition, respondents No.2 and 3 filed an application dated 8.6.2015 under section 21 and 22 of the 2007 Act read with Rule 19 of the Chandigarh Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “2009 Rules”) for protection of their life and property i.e. the residential H.No.112, Sector 9, Chandigarh at the hands of the petitioner and her mother Smt. Surender Kaur. It was claimed therein that house No.112, Sector 9- B, is wholly owned by respondent No.2. Fifty per cent share in respect of this plot was transferred in his favour on the basis of registered Will dated 23.1.1991 of his late father Shri Ajmer Singh. The remaining 50 per cent of this house held by Smt. Jagir Kaur (wife of late Ajmer

































































































































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