PREETI UNIYAL Vs. LALITESHWARI UNIYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before this Court is the defendant in a suit, being Suit No. 616 of 2017, filed by Smt. Laliteshwari Uniyal Vs. Smt. Preeti Uniyal. In the Suit, in question, as preferred by the plaintiff/respondent, she has contended that the defendant is her daughter-in-law and, in that social capacity, she was rather permitted to reside on the first floor of the premises, which has been described as property in dispute in the suit, which was occupied by her as a licensee.

(2.) The plaintiff/respondent has contended that since she being an exclusive purchaser of the property and having purchased the same by virtue of the sale deed dtd. 10/10/2011, is the owner of the property and as the defendant, who happens to be her daughter-in-law, since she was married with the youngest son of the plaintiff, she was permitted to reside in certain portion of the property, in question, which belonged to the plaintiff / respondent, thus purchased by the plaintiff on 10/10/2011. Since there have been number of matrimonial disputes between the defendant and her husband, Sachin, for example, the proceedings for dissolution of marriage initiated as Divorce Case No. 836 of 2017, Sachin Uniyal Vs. Preeti Uniyal, in which, the appellant wife has filed a counter claim under Sec. 9 of the Hindu arriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, there have been other proceedings also drawn by the defendant/appellant against the plaintiff and other family members under the Domestic Violence Act, which is also pending consideration.

(3.) During the pendency of the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act or under the Hindu Marriage Act inter se between the defendant / appellant and her husband, it is altogether an independent proceeding, that would have no bearing over as far as the suit which was instituted by the plaintiff/respondent for eviction of defendant/appellant is concerned, who was residing as a licensee in the capacity of being the wife of son of the plaintiff. Since on account of certain matrimonial and family disputes, the license of the defendant/appellant to continue to reside in the premises was terminated by virtue of a registered notice issued to her on 6/11/2017.