BALWANTI Vs. SIMRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Balwanti has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant Simru, her husband, from interfering in peaceful possession and enjoyment of house No. 22, Block 2013, Sector 32 -C, Chandigarh and further restraining him from letting out, selling, mortgaging, leasing out or transferring the suit property in any manner.

(2.) Plaintiff alleged that she is legally wedded wife of defendant. Her marriage was performed long back according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. One son, namely, Rohtash and one daughter, namely, Krishna took birth from this wedlock. Both of them are married and have their own families. Rohtash is living with the plaintiff for the last many years as the defendant had stopped supporting her in her old age. Plaintiff is keeping her son and his family in the aforesaid house, which is claimed to be joint Hindu family property. Plaintiff had filed a case under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. against the defendant, in which maintenance of Rs. 621/ - per month was granted since 1991. Another case was also filed by her under Sec. 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/ - per month. Plaintiff further alleged that the suit property was purchased by the parties out of their savings and joint funds, though allotment letter was issued in the name of the plaintiff being head of the family. Plaintiff was living in the suit property as a matter of legal right, having spent her earnings in the property and it was the legal duty of the defendant to provide her a matrimonial house. Feeling apprehension of dispossession, the present suit came to be filed.

(3.) Defendant contested the suit on all counts. It has been admitted that the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of defendant and one son, namely, Rohtash and one daughter, namely, Krishna took birth from this wedlock. Defendant has denied that he has stopped supporting the plaintiff for the last many years and that is why son Rohtash started living with the plaintiff. Factum of property being joint Hindu family property has been denied. Filing of petitions under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. and 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act have been admitted. Maintenance to the tune of Rs. 621/ - per month is an admitted fact. However, petition under Sec. 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act was dismissed. Defendant alleged that the suit property was allotted to defendant on 5.7.1982 vide allotment letter No. 3591/DC/ALC -2 by Chandigarh Administration under the Licensing of Tenements and Sites and Services in Chandigarh Scheme, 1979. It has been denied that the suit property was purchased out of joint funds of the family. It has also been denied that the defendants have ever threatened to evict the plaintiff from the suit land. As per recital of the allotment, tenement No. 2013/22 in Sector 32 -C, Chandigarh has been allotted to the defendant as a licensee on monthly rent of Rs. 50/ - exclusive of electricity and other charges on certain terms and conditions, which have been mentioned in the allotment letter dated 5.7.2002.