KAVITA KUMARI Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner -Kavita Kumari to challenge the legality of a judgment dated 19.04.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl. A. 26/2013 whereby order dated 15.12.2011 passed by Mahila Court, Central District, Delhi, dismissing application for interim relief under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short DV Act) was upheld. Petition is contested by respondent No. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Petition under Sec. 29 of DV Act has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent No. 2 and is pending before the Trial Court. By an order dated 15.12.2011, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for reinstatement in house bearing No. T -514 B near Budh Bazar, Hill Road, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi. The appeal against the said order resulted in dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned orders cannot be sustained as the petitioner, legally wedded wife of the respondent No. 2 after her marriage on 16.04.1994 had lived at T -514 B near Budh Bazar, Hill Road, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi, and had shared the said accommodation. In the month of August, 1998, they started living in a rented accommodation at T -443, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi. She was forced to leave the said accommodation also on account of cruel treatment of respondent No. 2. She lodged a complaint case under Ss. 323/34 IPC against the respondent No. 2 and his brother and it resulted in their conviction. A case vide FIR No. 379/1998 under Ss. 498A/406/34 IPC was also registered against the respondent No. 2 and his brother. The respondent No. 2 had filed a divorce petition on 20.09.2002 which was decreed vide judgment dated 02.05.2009. However, in appeal, the said judgement and decree was set aside by this Court vide judgment dated 08.04.2011. Counsel urged that House No. T -514 B near Budh Bazar, Hill Road, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi, is the petitioner's shared household as defined under DV Act and is exclusively owned by the respondent No. 2. The rented accommodation at T -443, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi, was with an oblique motive to desert her forever. It was further contended that the Trial Court had specifically directed the respondent No. 2 to produce the title deeds of the said house vide order dated 09.03.2010. He, however, did not comply the said order and filed an affidavit on 17.04.2010 stating that the said house was not his property and was owned by his father. Respondent No. 2 has concealed the material relevant facts before the Trial Court regarding the ownership of the said property. She is entitled for residence in her shared household No. T -514 B near Budh Bazar, Hill Road, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 refuting the contentions urged that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed various facts. After the marriage, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 lived in a government accommodation bearing Quarter No. 8, PS Patel Nagar, which was allotted to his father. She never lived at any point of time in house No. T -514 B near Budh Bazar, Hill Road, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi. After compromise before CAW Cell as recorded in DD No. 6A dated 14.05.1998, the petitioner had shifted to T -510/EA -5, Vijay Marg, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi. The parties thereafter lived in house No. T -443, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi, a rented accommodation. House No. T -514 B near Budh Bazar, Hill Road, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi, is not owned by him.

(3.) In the rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated her version and claimed that respondent No. 2's father has since expired on 10.06.2014 and the said property has devolved upon him.