Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 13
Raj Mohan Singh, J
Swati – Appellant
Versus
Shakuntala – Respondent
CR No. 2230 of 2020
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Family Law / Property Disputes
Act Referred
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: O.39 R.1, O.39 R.2, S.151
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: S.18, S.19
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner (daughter-in-law) challenged an order of the lower appellate court that restrained her from entering the matrimonial home. The respondent (mother-in-law) claimed ownership of the property via a registered sale deed and sought an interim injunction to prevent the petitioner from dispossessing her. The petitioner contended that her matrimonial dispute and previous residence made the property a 'shared household'.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the property is the self-acquired property of the mother-in-law. Relying on settled law, it concluded that the right of residence under Section 17 of the Act is restricted to a 'shared household', which must belong to, or be rented by, the husband or the joint family. It was held that the petitioner has no legal right to reside in the self-acquired property of her parents-in-law.
Issues: The primary issue was whether a property owned exclusively by the mother-in-law constitutes a 'shared household' under the Domestic Violence Act, thereby granting the daughter-in-law a right of residence.
Ratio Decidendi: A 'shared household' is defined by the legal interest of the husband in the property. Where the property is the absolute self-acquired property of the parents-in-law, it cannot be considered a 'shared household' merely by virtue of past residence, and the wife cannot claim a right to residence against the owner's wishes.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohan Singla
CR No. 2230 of 2020
-1-
112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No. 2230 of 2020
Date of Decision: 24.09.2020
Swati
-Petitioner
Vs
Shakuntala
-Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present:
Mr. Mohan Singla, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
The case has been taken up for hearing through
video-conferencing.
Petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.08.2020
passed by Additional District Judge, Sonipat vide which the
petitioner was restrained from entering in the matrimonial
home.
Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit along with an
application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151
CPC for grant of interim injunction against the defendant-
present petitioner.
Plaintiff-respondent has averred that the defendant
has threatened to dis-possess the plaintiff and her husband
JYOTI YADAV
2020.09.24 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CR No. 2230 of 2020
-2-
from the suit property. Plaintiff-respondent is the owner of the
suit property on the strength of registered sale deed dated
11.01.2017. Parties are involved in different criminal cases.
Marriage of the defendant-petitioner was solemnized
with the son of the respondent on 30.04.2012. Petitioner has
two children, but she is having matrimonial dispute with her
husband i.e. son of the plaintiff-respondent. Plaintiff-respondent
has pleaded that the defendant-petitioner has threatened to
commit suicide and implicate the plaintiff-respondent and her
family members in several false cases.
The trial Court vide order dated 04.07.2020
dismissed the application for interim injunction by observing that
the house is a shared house under the Domestic Violence Act
and the defendant-petitioner cannot be forcibly evicted from the
same as her belongings are still lying there.
Feeling aggrieved against the order dated
04.07.2020 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Sonipat, plaintiff-respondent filed a civil miscellaneous appeal
before the Additional District Judge, Sonipat.
The lower Appellate Court took cognizance of the
issue on the strength of case law viz Krishan Kumar vs
Navneet, (2018) 2 RCR (Criminal) 219, Sunita vs Sat Narain,
(2017) AIR (Punjab) 220, S.R. Batra and another vs Smt.
JYOTI YADAV
2020.09.24 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CR No. 2230 of 2020
-3-
Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169, Sardara Ram vs Paramjit
Kaur, (2018) 5 RCR (Criminal) 973 and Varinder Kaur vs
Jitender Kumar, (2016) 4 RCR (Criminal) 861.
Evidently, the petitioner is the owner of the suit
property having purchased the same vide registered sale deed
dated 11.01.2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
documents viz phone bills, tax receipts of Municipal
Corporation, documents pertaining to loan of DHFL etc. to
contend that the property is in the name of husband of the
petitioner. In the criminal case, a compromise was effected on
29.02.2020 in which plaintiff and her family members agreed
that the defendant along with her husband and children would
live on the first floor of the suit property, but on 01.03.2020, the
defendant was abused and mis-behaved by the plaintiff and
family members for which a complaint was made to the police.
Thereafter, on 04.03.2020, defendant went to her parental
house.
Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed the house
to be a shared house. The controversy in respect of self-
acquired property owned by parents-in-law has been settled by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.R. Batra and another vs Smt.
Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169.
JYOTI YADAV
2020.09.24 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CR No. 2230 of 2020
-4-
Husband of the petitioner is still alive. He has not
been arrayed as party respondent in the present case.
Allegations of the petitioner in respect of phone bills, tax
receip
