SANGEETA CHATURVEDI Vs. MANOJ CHATURVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment and decree dated 28th October, 2003 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi in Civil Suit No.86/2002, (i) of recovery of possession of Flat No.A -7, Lovely Apartments, Mayur Vihar, Phase -I, Delhi; (ii) of recovery of mesne profits / damages for use and occupation in the sum of Rs.18,000/ - with effect from 1st July, 2001 to 30th June, 2002 and @ Rs.2,500/ - per month from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 30th July, 2002 till the date of delivery of possession; and, (iii) of injunction restraining the appellant from allowing entry / stay of her friends and relatives in the said flat and from inducting anyone else into possession thereof.

(2.) Notice of the appeal was issued and status quo qua possession directed to be maintained. Vide order dated 23rd August, 2004, Mr. Raman Kapur, Advocate (now Senior Advocate) was requested to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant. The Trial Court record was requisitioned. Considering that the parties are husband and wife, attempts at mediation were made but remained unsuccessful. Finally, on 30th May, 2006, the appeal was admitted for hearing and the ad -interim order dated 14th January, 2004 made absolute till the decision of the appeal. The parties were again referred to mediation but which again failed. On 23rd July, 2013, it was informed (a) that the claim of the appellant/wife to the subject flat is on account of the same being her matrimonial home; (b) that besides this proceeding, divorce proceedings as well as maintenance proceedings were also pending between the parties; (c) that electricity connection to the subject flat stands disconnected and there are arrears of over Rs.2,50,000/ - to be paid for restoration thereof; and, (d) that the brother of the appellant/wife is married to the sister of the respondent/husband and that marriage has also run into problem. Attempt at mediation again made also failed. Vide order dated 6th April, 2015, both parties were directed to file their affidavits of assets, income and expenditure. Though the appellant/wife filed an affidavit but the respondent/husband did not file any affidavit and the counsel for the respondent/husband on 8th September, 2015 contended that the subject matter of this appeal being not concerned with the aspect of maintenance, there was no need therefor. The respondent/husband on 8th September, 2015 also offered that upon the appellant/wife vacating the flat, the respondent/husband would in addition to the maintenance already fixed / decided and / or being already paid, pay additional sum of Rs.7,000/ - per month to the appellant/wife for her lifetime. However, the said proposal was also not acceptable to the appellant/wife. In this view of the matter, on 17 th November, 2015, the counsels were heard on merits of the appeal and were also permitted to file written submission and judgment was reserved. Neither party has chosen to file written arguments, though brief synopsis of submissions of the counsel for the appellant/wife is on record.

(3.) The only claim of the appellant/wife to remain in possession of the subject flat being on the ground that the same is her matrimonial home, need to burden this judgment with the details of pleadings, evidence and findings returned by the learned ADJ, is not felt. Suffice, it is to state that the learned ADJ, on the basis of the evidence led has disbelieved the same, finding that the respondent/husband since prior to his marriage on 31 st January, 1992 with the appellant/wife had been living at Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi and had purchased the subject flat only in the year 1999 and the parties had never lived as husband and wife in the subject flat. I may in this regard notice the plea of the respondent/husband, of the appellant/wife though staying away from him, on coming to know of the purchase by him of the said flat, having illegally and forcibly trespassed thereinto.