IMPORTANT POINTS
1) Even considering definition of shared household as provided under Section 2 (s) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, daughter-in-law can be evicted without seeking decree of eviction against son.
(2) Any evidence, documentary or oral, cannot be seen in absence of a pleading.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—Heard Sri Jatin Sahgal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.9.2019 and 23.9.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2017 (Sujata Gandhi vs. S.B. Gandhi) and judgment and decree dated 8.3.2017 and 22.3.2017 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Ghaziabad in Original Suit No. 907 of 2014 (S.B. Gandhi vs. Smt. Sujata Gandhi).

3. Necessary facts shorn of details are that the appellant was married with the plaintiff’s son namely, Vijay Gandhi on 29.4 .1998 and two children born out of this wedlock. In the year 2013 Vijay Gandhi, son of the plaintiff deserted the appellant and thereafter filed a divorce petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. One NCR/FIR was lodged at police station Link Road, Ghaziabad by the plaintiff against the appellant. According to the plaint case the plaintiff is owner of House Number A-242, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad. After marriage of his son he permitted his son and the defendant to live on the first floor of his house. It is alleged that he is old and his wife is also old and is handicapped. The defendant started harassing the plaintiff and his wife. Under such circumstances the plaintiff asked his son to vacate the house along with the defendant. His son Vijay Gandhi left the suit property and started living somewhere else with the defendant, however, after sometime she came back and forcibly occupied the suit property and thereafter the defendant refused to vacate the house. As such, the suit for eviction of the defendant was filed. The case of the defendant is that she never left the matrimonial house and is continuously living in the same.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

5. I find that the arguments of learned counsels for the parties have been appropriately noted in the order dated 19.11.2019 when the appeal was admitted and substantial question of law was framed by this court, which is quoted as under;

“Heard Sri Jatin Sahgal, counsel for the appellant and Sri S.B. Singh, counsel for the respondents.

This second appeal has been filed under section 100 of CPC being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 19.9.2019 and 23.9.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2017, Sujata Gandhi Vs. S.B. Gandhi, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Ghaziabad in OS No. 907 of 2014, S.B. Gandhi Vs. Sujata Gandhi on 8.3.2017 asking the present appellant-defendant before the Trial Court to evict the suit property situated at A-242, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad.

Counsel for the appellant submits that it is an admitted position that father-in-law of the present appellant namely S.B. Gandhi filed a suit without impleading his son Vijay Gandhi as party. It is submitted that appellant’s marriage was solemnized with the plaintiff’s son namely Vijay Gandhi on 29.4.1998 and two children born out of this wedlock on 23.4.2004 and 8.3.2007. In the year 2013 Vijay Gandhi deserted the appellant and thereafter has filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage under section 13(1) (ia) and Section 13 (I) (ii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Delhi. An NCR/FIR was lodged at police station Link Road, Ghaziabad by the plaintiff against the appellant stating that Vijay Gandhi had left the suit property and the appellant is still living in the suit property. It is submitted that in the year 1998 the appellant in absence of Vijay Gandhi, who married him, was allowed to stay on the first floor of the suit property. Merely Vijay Gandhi left the suit premises will not made that appellant has lost interest in share and shared household.

Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this court to Section 2(s) read with Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter ref