2023/DHC/000028

$~60

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 20^th December, 2022

+

W.P.(C) 17386/2022 & CM APPL. 55358/2022, 55359/2022

KARTIKA GROVER

... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Vaibhav Sinha, Advocate.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Ripin Sood, Advocate for R-1

Ms. Aditya Goel, Ms. Manisha

Agrawal Narain, Ms. Rakshita Goyal,

Mr.

Sandeep

Singh

Somaria,

Advocates

for

R-2&3

(M-

9818427971) Mr. Sunil Dutt Dixit, Mr. Sandeep for

R-4, Advocates. (M-9312832910)

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 22^nd

November, 2022, passed by the ld. Principal Secretary-cum-Divisional

Commissioner. The order was passed in an appeal filed by Mrs. Kartika

Grover/Petitioner and her husband, Mr. Nitin Grover/Respondent No.4,

against the order of the ld. District Magistrate (North West) passed on 25^th

August, 2020, under the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter “MWPSCA”). Vide the said order of

Digitally Signed

By:DEVANSHU JOSHI

Signing Date:04.01.2023

19:12:12

Signature Not Verified

2023/DHC/000028

the ld. DM, the Petitioner/daughter-in-law was evicted from the premises

being Ground Floor, SU - 151, Pitampura, New Delhi-110088 (hereinafter

“subject property”).

3. Mrs. Kartika Grover and Mr. Nitin Grover were married on 13^th

February, 2007. The couple was blessed with a girl child on 19^th January

2009. The allegation of the Petitioner is that she was thrown out of her

matrimonial house/subject property in 2012. However, with the help of the

local police, she submits that she has re-entered the matrimonial house in the

year 2015. The position as on date is that the father-in-law and mother-in-

law/Respondent Nos.2&3 are no longer living in the subject property; they

live in a small accommodation at Shalimar Bagh which is 32 sq. mts.

4. It is the case of the parents-Respondent Nos.2&3 that their son and

daughter-in-law are in collusion with each other. They submit that the son

and daughter-in-law misbehaved with them, abused them, and started

pressurizing them to transfer the subject property, and vacate the same. In

these circumstances, Respondent Nos.2&3, submit that they, along with the

then-75 year old mother of Respondent No.2, were driven out of the subject

property and forced to stay in another smaller property in Shalimar Bagh.

Therefore, the parents filed a complaint before the ld. District Magistrate

under the MWSCPA, which was finally disposed of by the impugned order

evicting the Petitioner.

5. Ld. Counsel for Respondent Nos.2&3 further submits that there is no

complaint which has been filed against the in-laws either under Section

498A IPC or under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 (hereinafter “DVA”). They submit that in fact, in a complaint filed by

the Petitioner before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, North-

Digitally Signed

By:DEVANSHU JOSHI

Signing Date:04.01.2023

19:12:12

Signature Not Verified

2023/DHC/000028

West, RHC/Mahila Court (hereinafter “Mahila Court”), Respondent

Nos.2&3 have been deleted as accused. There are also no divorce

proceedings which are pending. This according to the Respondents would

show that there is collusion between the son and daughter-in-law. Ld.

Counsel further submits that the mother-in-law suffers from Arthritis and the

father-in-law is a heart patient. Both of them wish to occupy the ground

floor subject property at Pitampura, as the Shalimar Bagh property where

they are currently residing, is a very small property. They wish to use this

second property for rental purposes for earning income in their old age. It is

also alleged that the Petitioner herself is not in occupation of the subject

property as is evident from the ele