SHILPA TANDON Vs. HARISH CHAND TANDON & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent, aged 69 years, is the father-in-law of the appellant who, is married to respondent No.2. Obviously respondent No.2 is the son of respondent No.1.

(2.) House bearing Municipal No.D-3, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, admittedly belongs to respondent No.1. In the suit filed by him claiming mandatory and prohibitory injunction and damages, respondent No.1 pleaded that after the appellant and the respondent No.2 were married on November 18, 2016 they resided on the barsati/first floor of his house, but claims the status of his son and daughter-in-law to be that of a licensee. In para 3 of the plaint he admitted that initially the couple were having meals in a shared kitchen with him and his other children, but pleaded that due to differences they started cooking meals separately in a kitchen on the first floor. Pleading that he had revoked the license and in spite thereof his son and his daughter-in-law continued to occupy the barsati/first floor of his house the suit was filed with prayers aforenoted.

(3.) As per the first respondent her husband and her father-in-law were in league. Her husband had shifted to the ground floor at the instigation of her father-in-law who wanted her to abort the foetus when it was found that she was carrying a female child. She resisted. She gave birth to a female child who is hated by her father-in-law and her sister-in-laws. She predicates a right to reside on the barsati/first floor on the strength of it being her 'shared household' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.