GUDIA DEVI @ GURIYA DEVI Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the appellant. Respondent No. 1 is the husband of the appellant and he has not appeared in spite of valid service of notice.

(2.) The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.8.2015 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar, in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 2015, whereby the suit filed by the petitioner appellant under Sec. 7(I) Explanation (c) and (d) of the Family Courts Act, for grant of injunction, restraining the opposite parties respondents from ousting or dispossessing the petitioner appellant and her children from the scheduled property, and for restraining the opposite parties respondents from selling or alienating the schedule property, was dismissed by the Family Court below, holding that the property in question is exclusively in possession of the mother-in-law, hence the suit filed by the petitioner was not maintainable.

(3.) The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The petitioner appellant is the daughter-in-law of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, being the legally married wife of their son, the respondent No.1. It is the claim of the appellant that their residence is situated in Holding No.156 within Ward No.15 of Deoghar Municipal Corporation, fully described in the schedule to the petition, and in that very house, the applicant is still residing, which is her matrimonial home. She has alleged that she was being subjected to cruelty and harassment by the opposite parties, but out of the wedlock, two daughters and one son were born. The cruel treatment to her continued and the opposite parties tried to oust her from the matrimonial home in which she is living with her children and for that, on 16.7.2015 at about 6:00 P.M., the opposite parties along with some anti social elements forced the petitioner to vacate the matrimonial house. The petitioner however, did not succumb to the pressure of the anti social elements and the opposite parties gave one week time to the petitioner for vacating the matrimonial house, otherwise she may be done to death. It is stated by the petitioner appellant the said matrimonial house was, though purchased in the name of her mother-in-law, but it was purchased out of the money given out of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property, by the grandfather-in-law of the petitioner appellant, and as such, it is not the exclusive property of the mother-in-law, though the property stands in the name of the mother-in-law.