MANJU GUPTA Vs. PANKAJ GUPTA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was married to Pankaj Gupta (the first respondent) on 06.12.1985 and they have a male child Pranav Gupta as part of family. Concededly, the parties had lived in a portion of property bearing no. 47/35, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi for some time. Concededly again, the marriage ran into rough weather and this resulted in an estranged relationship and matrimonial dispute, eventually resulting in a petition (CC No. 66/1/2014) being filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by the petitioner impleading the said husband Pankaj Gupta and his father Prem Prakash Gupta (the second respondent herein). In the said proceedings, the petitioner also claimed right of residence, referring in this context to the above-mentioned property, describing it as the "shared household". The property in question concededly stands in the name of the second respondent (the father-in-law).

(2.) The Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 01.03.2016, declined to grant any relief in the nature of right to residence in respect of a portion in the above-mentioned property, referring in this context to the litigation in various cases, primarily one in the civil court. The petitioner challenged the said order in the court of Sessions by Crl. Appeal No. 14/2016 which was dismissed by order dated 21.04.2016.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the present petition was filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, reiterating her case, states that she has a right to continue to reside in the portion of the abovementioned property notwithstanding the fact that it stands in the name of the father-in-law (second respondent), asserting that she has been permitted the use and occupation of room in the said property by the second respondent by way of a "family arrangement" and that further in light of the fact that her husband (the first respondent) would have a right of succession in the property.