SHUMITA DIDI SANDHU Vs. SANJAY SINGH SANDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the wife of the defendant No. 1 and daughter-in-law of defendant Nos.2 and 3. For some reasons her matrimonial alliance with the defendant No. 1 has not been blissful. There are allegations of extra marital relations by the plaintiff against the defendant No. 1 and vice versa. Interestingly, both the spouses virtually accept the accusations levelled against each other, if not overtly, at least tacitly. At this stage, having regard to the nature of present proceedings, it would not be necessary to dig deep into these accusations. Suffice is to mention that though they have not put an end to this jural relationship, they have not been living as husband and wife for quite some time and there exists no bonding between the two. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly dispossessing her from suit property bearing No. 18-A, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi. Reason for impleading her in-laws in the present suit is that they are the owners of the aforesaid property (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property').

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is her matrimonial home since 1994. She is currently residing on the first floor of the suit property and the defendants are living on the ground floor due to strained relations between them. It is alleged that the defendant No. 1, who is the only son of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 has a history of alcohol and substance abuse since he was in school and throughout his "life he has spent his considerable time in various rehabilitation centres in India and abroad. Despite these bad habits the plaintiff married him thinking that her life of devotion would help the defendant No. 1 to overcome his habits. He is also convicted of murder (Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act). His appeal against the said conviction is pending in this Court. He is presently on bail. It is also the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 has treated her with grave mental and physical cruelty. On a number of occasions he has physically assaulted the plaintiff. He is also engaged in a series of adulterous relationship with other women and commercial sex workers and details of some of these relationships are given in the plaint.

(3.) In so far as relief claimed in the present suit is concerned, it is predicated on the premise that after the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant No. 1, they lived on the ground floor of the suit property along with the defendant Nos.2 and 3. However, due to severe violence from the defendant No. 1 and mental abuse from the defendant Nos.2 and 3, the plaintiff moved out to Defence Colony in May 1996. The defendant No. 1 also joined her there. However, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 put pressure on them in March 1999 to return to the suit property and this is how she eventually came back and started residing with the defendants in the suit property. Once the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 moved back to the matrimonial home, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 again started instigating the defendant No. 1 against the plaintiff in his acts of cruelty towards the plaintiff. In February 2004 the plaintiff came to know about the extra-marital relationship of the defendant No. 1 with another woman called Chinu @ Bo @ Gauri @ Sonam Bhandari with whom the defendant No. 1 had married on 6.9.1999. Marriage ceremony was performed at Birla Mandir on that date. She came to know of the said illegal marriage from the letters written by the defendant No. 1 to the said woman. It is alleged that the defendant No. 1 even confessed to having a second ceremony with Chinu at Har Ki Paudi, Hardwar in the first week of June 2004. When the plaintiff confronted the defendant No. 1 about the said relationship, he abused and physically assaulted the plaintiff. Because of the perpetrated acts of physical violence, fearing danger to her life and* limb, the plaintiff was forced to leave the matrimonial home in February 2004. She struggled in isolation for a period of seven months and took help of an NGO named Jagori that works for women empowerment and rights. After attending counseling sessions and workshops conducted by the said NGO, the plaintiff gathered strength to return to her matrimonial home on 10.10.2004 by finally asserting her right to live in her matrimonial home. On the night of 13.10.2004 the defendant No. 1 along with some hired goons and some of his friends tried to force his way into the first floor of the said house where the plaintiff started living, with the intention of throwing out the plaintiff on the streets. The plaintiff had to call the police for intervention but the Chowki In-charge of Amar Colony did not help. The plaintiff then called the NGO Jagori to ensure her safety apprehending that there may be attempts on the part of the defendants to throw her out of the suit property without due process of law. The plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent injunction containing the aforesaid prayer on 12.1.2005. It is also alleged that the defendants are trying to sell the suit property and for this purpose they have already taken possession of a house bearing No. 201, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, for their residence.