KHUSHWANT KAUR Vs. GAGANDEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 30.05.2013 which has endorsed the findings returned by the Magistrate wherein the respondent/complainant was permitted to keep her istridhan articles in a portion of the house which was in her physical possession. Record discloses that the complainant Gagandeep was married to Sarvjeet Singh (son of the petitioners) on 14.11.2010 at Delhi. They stayed together at the residential address No. 11/8, Ground Floor, Gali No. 142, Old Gobind Pura Extension, New Delhi from the time of their marriage up to October, 2011. The contention of the petitioners is that on 29.10.2011, they had disowned their son and a public notice to this effect had also been given. On 01.11.2011, their son Sarvjeet Singh along with the complainant shifted to a nearby rented accommodation. On 02.11.2011, the complainant accompanied by the police forcibly entered the house after breaking open the locks. The petitioners being senior citizens are aggrieved by the acts of the complainant; submission being that it is the obligation of their son i.e. the husband of the complainant to look after his wife and the present property where the complainant is forcibly residing being owned by petitioner No. 2 (Daljeet Singh), the complainant cannot forcibly continue to stay in the said property. The petitioners to vent their grievance had also filed suit for permanent and mandatory injunction i.e. CS (OS) No. 248/2011 titled 'Daljeet Singh v. Gagandeep Sidhu and Another'. This was on 26.11.2011. The complainant was also aggrieved. She filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband and the present petitioners on 22.12.2011. In this petition, she has prayed for continuation of residence in the property which she alleges was in her physical occupation; she has also prayed for other interim reliefs including the relief of maintenance. A complaint under Sections 406/498 -A/34 of the IPC was also filed by the complainant in the CAW Cell, Nanak Pura pursuant to which FIR No. 122/2012 was registered.

(2.) ON 27.01.2012, in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the learned Magistrate had noted the contention of the complainant that she is in the family way; her relief that she be not dispossessed from the shared household without following the due process of law was accepted as both the petitioners (then present) were agreeable to this proposition. The in -laws of the complainant (petitioners No. 1 & 2) were accordingly restrained from dispossessing the complainant from the aforenoted property without following the due process of law. This order was passed admittedly with the consent of the present petitioners as is evident from the order. On 10.05.2013, the learned Magistrate extended the order dated 27.01.2012 restraining the petitioners from dispossessing the complainant from the property in question till further orders. The Court had noted that it is only after the evidence that it could be decided whether it is a shared household or not as admittedly after the marriage, the husband of the complainant had taken the complainant to the aforesaid property. The Court had also noted that the petitioners had filed a suit for possession against the complainant which was pending which is CS (OS) No. 248/2011 (noted supra). The Magistrate vide order dated 10.05.2013 had accordingly permitted the complainant to keep her istridhan articles (which had been returned to her in bail proceedings) in the property in question.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioners, arguments have been addressed in detail. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently relied upon the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment of S.R. Batra (Supra). Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments reported as : 168 (2010) DLT 521 Sardar Malkiat Singh v. Kanwaliit Kaur & Ors, : 2008 (106) DRJ 623 Neetu Mittal v. Kanta Mittal & Others, : 202 (2013) DLT 548 Kavita Chaudhri v. Eveneet Singh and Anr., : 174 (2010) DLT 79 (DB) Sumita Didi Sandhu v. Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Others, : 2013 (135) DRJ 307 Barun Kumar Nahar v. Parul Nahar & Anr and Savitri Devi v. Manjoj Kumar and Ann CS(OS) No. 910/2011 decided on 18.09.2013 to canvas her proposition that where the property is admittedly owned by the father -in -law and the son has set up a separate residence (submission being that son had shifted out of the matrimonial home on 01.11.2011 and a rent agreement to this effect has also been placed on record), the daughter -in -law (the complainant) has no vested right to continue to retain the property.