J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter „CPC‟) challenging the validity of the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.05.2019 and 16.05.2019, respectively, passed by the learned Additional District Judge in CS (OS) No. 575890/2016 titled as Shri Durga Dass Bansal & Anr v. Smt. Seema Bansal & Anr., whereby, the suit for possession, recovery of mesne profits and injunction has been decreed in favor of respondent nos. 1 and 2.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The respondent decree holders are parents-in-law of the appellant, and they hold decree against both their son and daughter-in- law in the suit, wherein, the son was arraigned as defendant no.2 and daughter-in-law was arraigned as defendant no.1. The appellant herein is the daughter-in-law of the decree holders.

3. The facts necessary for deciding the controversy at hand would exhibit that the appellant and her husband, i.e. respondent no.3, solemnized their marriage on 10.07.2000 and two children were born out of the wedlock. The elder daughter of the appellant was born in the year 2001 and in the year 2005, the younger son was born. The relationship was tumultuous since inception and multiple proceedings in various fora were initiated by the parties against each other.

4. On 07.06.2014, a civil suit for eviction was filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 for eviction of the appellant along with her husband. The said suit was decreed in favour of respondent nos.1 and 2 herein by the impugned judgment and decree as respondent nos.1 and 2 were found to be sole and exclusive owners of the suit property in the absence of any Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafter „HUF‟).

5. Being aggrieved by the passing of the impugned judgment and decree, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

SUBMISSIONS

6. Ms. Aditi Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that based on a reading of Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter „DV Act‟), the appellant is in a „domestic relationship‟, residing in the suit property since the inception of her marriage and by virtue of the „domestic relationship‟ arising from a solemnized marriage, the appellant is entitled to a “shared household”.

7. Based on a reading of the provisions of the DV Act, it is to be understood that a “shared household” arises by virtue of a “domestic relationship”. Learned counsel referred to the following provisions of the DV Act:-

“2 (f) “domestic relationship”- means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;

2 (s) “shared household”- means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a house hold whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household;

17. Right to reside in a shared household.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

(2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law.”

8. She further submitted that the impugned order directs eviction of the appellant solely