SATYA PAL SINGH Vs. GEETA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as the 'D.V.Act'), petitionerhusband has been directed by the trial court vide order of 20th November, 2013 to vacate premises bearing No. 6-D, Pocket-E, LIG Flats, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. Petitioner had filed a statutory appeal against the aforesaid order, which stands dismissed vide impugned order of 27th November, 2013. Both the courts below have held that there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner had contributed anything towards the purchase of property in question, which is in the name of respondent-complainant.

(2.) The relevant facts, as noticed in the impugned order, are as under:-

(3.) At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that merely because respondent-complainant did not press for relief of maintenance, it would not justify petitioner's eviction from the premises in question because the evidence has not been led by the parties and the impugned direction could be issued only at the time of disposal of the main petition under Section 12 of the D.V.Act and that too, after holding that respondent-complainant was subjected to domestic violence. It was vehemently submitted that in the absence of finding of respondent- complainant being subjected to domestic violence in the impugned order, the impugned direction issued is totally uncalled for. It was further submitted that the basic ingredients of Section 19 of the D.V.Act are lacking, as in the absence of finding of domestic violence, direction to petitioner to remove himself from the shared household cannot be passed. Lastly, it was submitted that petitioner has been indicted without any trial, which is against the mandate of the provisions of the D.V.Act and so, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.