PARINEETA VOHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A for the State.

(2.) Considering the nature of the order that is being passed I do not consider it necessary to issue notice to the opposite party No.4. However, in case, the opposite party No.4 is aggrieved by the order, she may file an application for recall.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite party No.4 had submitted an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic of violence Act,2005 against her husband Sandeep vohra, her father-in-law Baldev, her mother-in-law Smt. Surya Kiran vohra, her maternal uncle-in-law Surender Anand, son of maternal uncle-in-law Manish Anand and another maternal uncle-in-law Sanjay Sahni. It is contended that in this application, under section 12 of the aforesaid Act, one of the reliefs sought was for residence in accommodation bearing House No.C-83, Sector 47, Noida. The contention of the petitioner is that this accommodation No.C-83, Sector 47, Noida is a property owned by, and registered in the name of, the petitioner. In proof thereof, the petitioner has enclosed a certificate of mutation disclosing that the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority has registered this property in the name of the petitioner on the basis of a transfer deed dated 3.10.2011. On the strength of this transfer document, the contention of the petitioner is that the said property is no longer a property owned by the husband of the opposite party No.4, and since there was no injunction restraining such transfer, the property now belongs to the petitioner and it cannot be made a subject matter of proceedings under section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic violence Act. Reliance has been placed on Apex Court's decision in the case of S.R. Batra and another v. Taruna Batra(Smt), 2007 3 SCC 169. It has been contended that by the order impunged, a right of residence has been provided to the opposite party No.4 in the house No. C-83, Sectior 47, Noida, even though it belonggs to the petitioner and the petitioner was not party to the proceedings. It has further been contended that since the petitioner was not a party to the proceeding under section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic violence Act, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to file an appeal against the order dated 9.7.2012.