SONIA MEHRA Vs. ROMY MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present Appeal, the Appellant [Defendant No.2 before the learned Single Judge] assails the correctness of the order dtd. 9/9/2025 [hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order'] passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 19/2024, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'] filed by the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 [Plaintiffs before the learned Single Judge], directed the Appellant to vacate the property bearing House No. A-20, Ansal Villas, Satbari, Chhatarpur, New Delhi-110074 [hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'] within two months, and issued interim directions relating to alternate accommodation (Rs.2,50,000.00 per month to be paid by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 apart from Maintenance of Rs.3,00,000.00 per month to be paid by Appellant's husband, i.e., the Respondent No.3), payment of rent, school fees, and preservation of title/status-quo.

(2.) The issue which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge, in directing the Appellant to vacate the suit property at the interlocutory stage, correctly balanced the entitlement of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as senior citizens to live peacefully and with dignity in their own home against the Appellant's statutory right of residence under Sec. 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as 'PWDV Act'], while ensuring that adequate alternate accommodation, maintenance, and schooling arrangements for the minor children were provided.

(3.) For a proper appreciation of the controversy, the factual matrix leading to the passing of the Impugned Order is required to be briefly recapitulated as under.