DINESH KUMAR Vs. RUCHI AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent has instituted proceedings against the petitioner and his parents by filing a petition (CC No.229/1/2010) in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate under Sec. 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the DV Act) seeking various reliefs including protection orders under Sec. 18 and an order as to right to residence under Sec. 19 besides other monetary reliefs. The main petition is concededly pending inquiry, it being an admitted case that the parties were married to each other on 14.10.2007 as per Hindu rites and customs, the relations having turned sour which, as per the case of the respondent (wife), on account of "domestic violence", the parties living separately. It appears the daughter born out of this wedlock has been in the care, custody and control of the respondent.

(2.) In the context of right to residence by the main petition under Sec. 12 of the DV Act, the respondent (wife) has prayed for direction to the petitioner (husband) to provide to her a three room set accommodation in South Delhi for her unhampered and continuous use, it being prayed, in the alternative, that if such premises were to be taken on rent, the liability to pay such rent regularly be fastened against him. Germane to this prayer, as indeed to certain other prayers, is the averment (in para 19 of the main petition) by the wife to the effect that the husband had "bought" a residential property, for consideration of Rs.37 lacs, in June, 2007, it being described as flat at 905 Tower II, Mahagun Mosaic Off Dabur Chowk, Vaishali, Ghaziabad. The petition under DV Act is being contested by the petitioner with plea of denial of acquisition of such residential property by him.

(3.) The wife had also made a prayer to the Magistrate for interim orders to be granted in her favour including on the subject of right to residence. The issues concerning interest, if any, in the said residential flat of Vaishali, Ghazibad had come up for consideration before the Metropolitan Magistrate and the first appellate court (court of Sessions) in such context and the submissions of the petitioner that the said property is owned by his father also a respondent in the main petition, were accepted.