LAWS(DLH)-2012-4-216

KAVITA CHAUDHRI Vs. EVENEET SINGH

Decided On April 25, 2012
KAVITA CHAUDHRI Appellant
V/S
EVENEET SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this execution petition filed under Order XXI, the decree holder seeks execution of the orders dated 20.12.2010 and 29.4.2011 passed by this 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 as shown in red colour in the site plan forming part of the property bearing No. D-32, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi.

(2.) Before dealing with the merits of the present petition and the opposition thereto by the judgment debtor No.1, it is necessary to give a brief background which led to the passing of the said two orders. A civil suit i.e. CS(OS) No. 505/2010 was filed by Dr. Kavita Chaudhri to seek a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction against her son, the defendant no.2 herein and defendant No.1, her daughter-inlaw directing them to vacate the premises under their occupation forming part of property bearing No. D-32, South Extension Part II, New Delhi and restraining them to enter the said premises or to cause any kind of harassment to the plaintiff. The other suit i.e. CS(OS) No. 1307/2010 was filed by the said daughter-in-law i.e. Ms. Eveneet Singh for declaration, maintenance, residence and mandatory injunction under Sections 18 and 23 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and impleading therein her husband as defendant no.1, and her mother-in-law as defendant no.2. 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, Ms. Eveneet Singh started residing at her matrimonial home i.e. premises bearing No. D- 32, South Extension Part II, New Delhi. However, within a short span 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 bearing no. C-528, 2 nd Floor, 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 bearing No. D- 32, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi filed the said suit to claim a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction primarily to seek ouster of defendant no.1. 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 17 th 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 bearing No. D-32, 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 this court giving certain directions. Vide order dated 29 th April,2011 in I.A. No. 1401/2011 filed under Section 151 CPC in CS(OS) No. 1307/2010 the said order dated 20.12.2010 was further clarified by this Court. The decree holder is now seeking execution of the said two orders passed by this court in the present execution petition.

(3.) The present execution petition was opposed by the judgment debtor primarily on two grounds; first that the said orders dated 20 th December, 2010 and 29 th April, 2011 are not in the nature of a decree executable in terms of Order XXI CPC and secondly that her husband has not secured the same level of alternative accommodation for the judgment debtor as is being enjoyed by her in the matrimonial home in terms of Section 19(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and until such an accommodation is made available commensurate to the status of the wife any order passed by this court in the present execution case seeking eviction of the judgment debtor from the premises in question would be in clear violation of the right of the woman granted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.