ANAND J DATWANI Vs. GEETI BHAGAT DATWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner under sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondent/contemnor, alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 13/1/2009 passed by this Court in WP (Crl.) No. 1097 of 2008. The said writ petition had been filed by the respondent herein to challenge the order dated 11.08.2008 passed by the learned ASJ in CA No. 7/2007 and C.A. No.10/2008. The order dated 11/8/2008 had been passed by the learned ASJ in four appeals preferred by the parties (two each by the petitioner and the respondent) from out of proceedings initiated by the respondent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act for Short) being Complaint Case No.111/2007. The order dated 11.08.2008, inter alia, stayed the eviction of the petitioner as directed by the learned M.M. vide order dated 03.11.2007, from the portion of property No.32, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens-II, Rangpuri, New Delhi assigned to him, till the final disposal of the aforesaid Complaint Case No.111/2007.

(2.) The petitioner and respondent were married in 1994. After they got married, they shifted their residence to Vasant Vihar. A daughter was born to the parties in 1996, and a son was born in 1999. Since 2001, both the parties along with their children were residing together at property no.32, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens- II, Rangpuri, New Delhi. The respondent bought the said property bearing no.32, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens-II, Rangpuri, New Delhi in the year 1989, i.e. much prior to the marriage between the parties in 1994.

(3.) The petitioner admits that the respondent is the sole ostensible owner of the said property, but at the same time also contends that he had spent almost 3.5 crores on developing the farmhouse and other infrastructure on it. He further alleges that he had entered into a development agreement with the respondent as per which he was to be given 50% share of the said property. However, the aforesaid document has not been filed on record. He submits that the fact that he did invest money in the construction etc can be corroborated by the persons concerned with the development and construction of the house, which includes the Architects, Contractors, material suppliers, etc. He further states that for the construction purposes, money amounting to more than Rs.1 crore was received on behalf of the petitioner from his Uncles company in Hong Kong (SKC Pacific Ltd.) directly into the account of the respondent. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the respondent prevailed upon him to let out the second dwelling unit, and give the rent proceeds to her old parents.