NEHA SIBAL Vs. RADHIKA SIBAL & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the instant petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is to the order dated 07.03.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, whereby an application dated 28.11.2016 (Annexure P-2), filed by respondent No. 1 Radhika Sibal, has been allowed thereby impleading her as a respondent in a complaint case filed under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'Act of 2005') by the petitioner herein against her husband Mickey Sibal-respondent No. 2.

(2.) To understand the controversy that has arisen in the instant case and to determine whether or not the JMIC, Gurugram has erred in allowing impleadment application filed by respondent No. 1 Radhika Sibal in a complaint case filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 by the petitioner against her husband, a few facts need to be noticed. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 allegedly solemnized their marriage on 05.10.2013 as per Sikh rites and customs at 218/B, Tower 2, 18th Floor, Magnolias DLF Phase-V, Gurugram, which apartment was owned by and in possession of respondent No. 2. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 2, started living as husband and wife. A marital discord arose between the parties with allegations that respondent No. 2 started harassing and beating the petitioner for petty issues. Resultantly, the petitioner made a complaint to the police and ultimately filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005. Learned trial Court followed the procedure and appointed a Protection Officer who gave his report and thereafter the JMIC, Gurugram passed order dated 05.11.2015 (Annexure P-5) restraining respondent No. 2 from dispossessing the petitioner from the said residential accommodation i.e. Flat No. 218-A. Immediately thereafter, respondent No. 1 Radhika Sibal claimed that her marriage with respondent No. 2 Mickey Sibal was still in subsistence, and filed an application for being impleaded as a respondent claiming that the flat in question was in her ownership.It was also alleged that the flat had been transferred in the name of her son Rahul Sibal, by a Conveyance Deed dated 10.04.2015 following which her son transferred 1/2 share in the flat in favour of respondent No. 1 (Radhika Sibal) vide transfer deed dated 10.11.2015 and subsequently she transferred ?th share in the flat in favour of her own mother (i.e. maternal grandmother of Rahul Sibal), vide transfer deed dated 23.11.2016. Respondent No. 1 Radhika Sibal alleged herself to be the legally wedded wife of respondent No. 2. Learned JMIC, Gurugram allowed the said application and permitted respondent No. 1 to be a party to the proceedings. Aggrieved against the impleadment of respondent No. 1, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner raises an argument that the application so preferred seeking impleadment is not maintainable since Radhika Sibal is a stranger to the lis that exists between the petitioner and her husband Mickey Sibal, respondent No. 2 herein. It is further argued that Flat No. 218-A, in which the petitioner was residing along with her husband, had been bought and paid for by respondent No. 2. It is also argued that this was a second marriage for both the parties and the relations became strained in the year 2014 itself which led to the lodging of FIR No. 359 dated 07.08.2014, under Section 498-A IPC at Police Station Sushant Lok, Gurugram and in order to circumvent the rights of petitioner, the conveyance deed, pertaining to the aforesaid flat, was got executed in favour of his son Rahul Sibal and such transaction would be hit by the provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act. The son was minor, aged about 11 years, at the time when the instalments on the said flat started on 30.11.2005 and he would have had no source of income to make payments towards the said flat amounting to Rs. 3,10,16,621/-. It is also argued that the application that has been filed in the present form, under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC, would not be maintainable in proceeding initiated under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Mr. S.N. Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner, also urges that there has been a direct violation of the order dated 05.11.2015, wherein the respondent No. 2 had been restrained from dispossessing the petitioner, since an overt attempt has been made to have her evicted by maligning her reputation and by getting the electricity connection disconnected.