RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the defendant in a suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff and with respect to the order dated 10th November, 2009 of the Additional District Judge, dismissing the application of the petitioner/defendant for transfer of the suit to the Family Court in view of Sections 7 & 8 of the Family Court Act, 1984. The counsel for the petitioner was heard on the aspect of issuance of notice of the petition to the respondent on 7th December, 2009 and the order reserved; since the suit was listed before the learned Additional District Judge for recording the evidence of the petitioner/defendant on the very next day, vide order of the same day, it was further directed that the learned Additional District Judge shall adjourn the hearing awaiting the orders of this Court.

2. The petitioner/defendant is the daughter-in-law of the respondent/ plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff has instituted the suit for the relief of ejectment of the petitioner/defendant from house No.G-1, Pocket-II, Neelgiri Apartments, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi-110028. It is inter alia the case of the respondent/plaintiff that she is the owner of the aforesaid house consisting of two bed rooms, drawing room, lobby, kitchen and two W.C.; that the petitioner/defendant was married to the son of the respondent/plaintiff on 12th September, 2007; that the son of the respondent/plaintiff was residing with the respondent/plaintiff in the aforesaid house and on marriage, the petitioner/defendant also started living in the same house; that while the son of the respondent/plaintiff was away from India on work, the petitioner/defendant picked up quarrel with the respondent/plaintiff and forced the respondent/plaintiff to leave the house. The respondent/plaintiff claiming to be the absolute owner of the house sued for possession and mesne profits.

3. The petitioner/defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. It is inter alia pleaded that the suit had been filed as a counter blast to the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under the Domestic Violence Act against her husband as well as against the husband of the daughter of the respondent/plaintiff; that in fact the bedroom allocated to the petitioner/defendant in the house is under lock and a prayer has been made in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act to open the locks of the said room; that the petitioner/defendant is not in possession of the entire house; that the respondent/plaintiff had of her own volition left the house by putting locks on the bedrooms and shifted to her daughter?s house; that the house was initially allotted in the name of the father-in-law of the petitioner/defendant and upon his demise devolved on the respondent/plaintiff as well as her son i.e. the husband of the petitioner/defendant and the petitioner/defendant has got a right by marriage to stay in the said house.

4. The respondent/plaintiff filed a replication in which she denied that her son had any right, title, interest or share in the said house and also denied that the said house was the matrimonial home of the petitioner/defendant. It was admitted that the house was allotted by the DDA in favour of the husband of the respondent/ plaintiff but it was pleaded that after the demise of the husband in the year 1995, respondent/ plaintiff became the exclusive owner of the property in terms of the mutation letter dated 14th August, 1998 issued by the DDA. It was thus contended that the petitioner/defendant has no right to reside in the said house or any part thereof. It was further informed that another court in a proceeding between the petitioner/ defendant and her husband, had directed the husband of the petitioner/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month to the petitioner/defendant as maintenance pendente lite.

5. The respondent/plaintiff has already examined herself as a witness