The abovenoted case is an execution petition filed by decree holder seeks execution of the orders dated 20.12.2010 and 29.4.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Court in CS(OS) No. 505/2010 and CS(OS) No.1307/2010 by issuance of warrants of possession in respect of one room in possession of judgment debtor.
BRIEF FACTS.
That the marriage of defendant no.1 (Prashant Vijay) and defendant no.2 (Eveneet Singh) was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies on 27.4.2009 and after her marriage, defendant no.2 started residing at her matrimonial home i.e. South Extension Part II, New Delhi. However, within a short duration of time, serious differences arose between the parties due to which the defendant no.2 moved out of the said premises and started residing in a rented accommodation i.e. premises in Defence Colony, New Delhi. The plaintiff who was a heart patient also complained harassment at the hands of her defendant no.1 Eveneet Singh and being the owner of the house of South Extension Part-II, New Delhi filed the suit to claim a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction primarily to seek ouster of defendant no.1 and the same was allowed. The daughter-in-law, on the other hand, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 17th March, 2010 besides taking steps to file the said civil suit to claim decree of maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and one of the prime reliefs being sought by her is to declare the ground floor of the property, South Extension Part II, New Delhi as her sole and exclusive property. Two separate applications were filed by the respective parties in the said two suits and vide order dated 20 th December, 2010 both the applications were disposed of by the court giving certain directions. The decree holder is now seeking execution of the two orders passed by this court in the present execution petition.
ORDER PASSED BY SINGLE BENCE.
The said two orders were passed by this court while disposing of two separate applications i.e. IA No. 8479/2010 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC filed by the daughter-in-law Eveneet in CS(OS) No. 1307/2010, and the IA No.3577/2010 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 filed by the mother-in-law Kavita Chaudhari in her suit bearing CS(OS) No. 505/2010. It would be relevant here to reproduce the operative para of the order dated 20.12.2010 as under: “The documentary evidence and pleadings suggest that Prashant’s monthly outgoings – in respect of the New York property are US$ 4500/-, which works out to Rs. 2,05,000/-.He is also paying rent to the tune of Rs. 27,000/- per month. With this expenditure, the Court can safely incur that his personal expenses would not be less than about Rs. 40,000/- per month. In these circumstances, to support this kind of lifestyle, Prashant’s average monthly income would not be less than Rs.450,000/- to Rs. 500,000/-. On the other hand, Eveneet’s income is about Rs.50,000/- per month; Prashant alleges it to be more. Having regard to his offer to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month towards alternative accommodation, the Court is of opinion that she should be entitled to an amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month towards rent, for alternative accommodation, and an amount of Rs. 45,000/- per month maintenance. In order to facilitate and effectuate this order, the parties are directed to appear before the Court handling the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, on 4 th January, 2011, which shall oversee that Prashant complies with Section 19(I)(f), within ten weeks from today. Till such alternative accommodation is made available, Eveneet would be entitled to continue in the suit premises, and also entitled to receive Rs. 45,000/- per month. The application for maintenance is allowed with effect from the date it was filed; arrears shall be paid within six weeks
ORDER OF SINGLE JUDGE CHALLENGED
The said order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged by the daughter-in-law /JD in FAO(OS) Nos. 71/2011, 72/2011 and 75/2011. The Hon’ble Division Bench of the Court vide order dated 11.2.2011 in the said appeals as an interim measure gave the following directions: “Earlier in the Order the learned Single Judge has endeavored to distinguish the present case from that in S.R. Batra Vs- Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has enunciated the law to be that a wife can claim to continue in residence provided that residence has been taken on rent by her husband, or that residence belongs to a joint family of which the husband is a member. Their Lordships have clarified that there is no absolute right for a daughter in-law to claim continued residence in a house belonging to her mother in law. Purely as an interim measure, on an assurance given to the Court by Prashant Chaudhari (husband), Eveneet Singh may set up exclusive residence in Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110024. The husband shall ensure payment of rent and in the event this property is not available for any reason the wife shall be entitled to move back into D-32, South Extension, Part-II, Ground Floor, new Delhi – 110049.The interim maintenance fixed by the learned Single Judge of Rs. 45,000/- however, shall remain.”
APPEAL DISMISSED
It is apparent that clause (f) of sub-section 1 of Section 19 of the Act is intended to strike a balance between the rights of a daughter-in- law and her in-laws, if a claim to a shared residence by the daughter- in-law pertains to a building in which the matrimonial home was set up belongs to her mother-in-law or father-in-law.
Taking on record the undertaking by the respondents i.e. the husband and the mother-in-law of the appellant, both being jointly and severally liable to pay monthly rent @ Rs.30,000/- to the appellant and additionally to pay maintenance @ Rs.45,000/- per month, the appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
A separate petition under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act was also preferred by Prashant, husband of Eveneet Singh in Cont.Case(C) 201/2011 to seek initiation of contempt proceedings against his wife for violating the orders dated 20.12.2010 and 11.2.2011 but the said contempt case was withdrawn by Prashant.
HELD
After taking this view the court directed the parties to appear before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate where the complaint of the wife under the DV Act was pending consideration, but with the clear mandate to the court of M.M. to facilitate and effectuate the said order. The court also directed that the court of M.M. shall oversee that Prashant complies with Section 19 (f) of the Domestic Violence Act within a period of 10 weeks from the date of the said order. The court also directed that till such alternative accommodation is made available, Eveneet would continue to reside in the said premises. As is referred above, the said order dated 20.12.2010 was challenged by Eveneet Singh in FAO(OS) Nos. 71/2011, 72/2011 and 75/2011 and vide interim order dated 11.2.2011, the Hon’ble Division Bench gave directions to Eveneet Singh to set up exclusive residence in C-528, 2nd Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi along with her husband. The Hon’ble Division Bench, however also directed that in the event of the said property not being available for any reason then in that case Eveneet shall be entitled to move back to D-32, South Extn., Part-I, New Delhi. In the clarification order dated 29.4.2011 the court clearly held that Eveneet has right to continue in the South Extension residence for a period of 10 weeks and Prashant was put under an obligation to offer an alternative accommodation. When the said order was passed by the learned Single Judge the order dated 11.2.2011 passed by the learned Division Bench was also before this court as would be manifest from para 8 of the said order dated 29.4.2011. In the operative para of the said order this court again relegated the parties to the concerned court of Metropolitan Magistrate dealing with the domestic violence complaint of the wife. This court directed the court of M.M. to consider the option, if any, furnished by Prashant to his wife Eveneet in line with the Court’s direction to make suitable orders and in the event of the Court finding it appropriate or suitable then to give Eveneet a reasonable time to shift to the same. The court further made it explicitly clear that in the event of her failing to do so it would be open to the defendant no.2, the decree holder herein to take appropriate proceedings for the implementation of the order passed by this court. It is pursuant to the said directions given by this court, the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 8.7.2011 came to the conclusion that the complainant Eveneet Singh has refused to shift to the alternative accommodation without any sufficient cause and at the same time she also refused to receive the amount of Rs.30,000/- in lieu of the alternative accommodation. After the said order was passed by the learned Magistrate the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 8.11.2011 also upheld the view taken by the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the ill health of the mother-in-law Kavita Chaudhari and after striking a balance between the rights of a daughter-in-law and her in-laws to give a purposeful meaning to clause (f) (1) of Section 19 of the Act. while dealing with the said two applications in the said two suits have extensively dealt with the judgment passed by the learned Apex Court in the case of S.R.Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169 and also the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Sumita Didi Sandhu Vs. Sanjay Singer Sandhu 171(2010) DLT 79(DB)
FINAL ORDER
The present petition is hereby allowed. Be issued warrants of possession in respect of one room in possession of judgment debtor.
CONCLUSION
The wife would be entitled to claim a right to residence in shared household and such a shared household would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to the joint family of which husband is the member. The property which neither belongs to the husband nor is taken on rent by him, nor is it a joint family property in which the husband is a member, cannot be regarded as a “shared household”. Clearly, the property which exclusively belongs to the father-in-law or the mother-in-law or to both of them in which the husband has no right, title or interest, cannot be called a “shared household”. Wife cannot claim her right to his father-in-law, mother-in-law, she can only claim her right to his husband only.
You may contact me for your specific case by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment