Wife files DV on 6 inlaws 9 yrs AFTER husband’s death! DV, Cruelty NOT proven, Looses case ! Delhi MM

A wife who left her matri home even before the death of her husband, who lived away from the in laws both before and after husband’s death, did NOT even remember the death dates of her father in law and mother in law, comes back 9 years after her husband’s death to claim share in father in law’s intestate property, by filing a DV case on her six surviving in laws !! she does NOT even remember when the father in law died !! The Hon MM court rightly appreciates the facts and throws the case out !!

  • Marriage : 1998
  • Husband dies : 2004
  • DV filed in : 2013 !! Yup 07 Sep 2013 , i.e. 9 years AFTER husband’s death !
  • Problem ?? : property bearing No. 20/116, Dakshinpuri Extn. is in the name of complainant’s father in law who has expired intestate !!!
  • Why DV : She & children have no shelter to pass their lives except their share in the property No. 20/116 Dakshinpuri Extn. !!!
    In laws clarify : THIS same wife who took away the (late) husband and made him severe all ties with in laws !!
    “…It is further stated that there is no question of committing cruelty by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 since marriage of complainant. It is further stated that father of respondent Jai Kishan had made separate arrangement for their three sons and Siri Kishan shifted to H. No. 20/6 , respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shifted to H. No. 20/116 and complainant alongwith her husband shifted to Gautampuri, near Badarpur and after shifting to present house, it is the complainant who forced her husband to severe all his relationship with the mother, father, brothers and sisters. ..”
  • …and the truth comes out during cross / trial and Hon court decrees as follows : “…during cross-examination of complainant herself as she stated in cross-examination she did not know date of death of her mother in law and her father in law, though later on she stated that father in law expired in the month of May 2000 and mother in law expired 2 years back. She nowhere stated that she was residing at the aforesaid address at the time of death of her parents in law. Though, she has stated that she was residing in the said house but she has not stated as to what room/portion she was occupying in the said house and on which floor. …. She has further not proved list of articles which were kept in her room. Though she has filed photocopy of Election ID bearing address 20/116 Dakshinpuri but the same was issued to her in the year 2002 i.e. before the death of her husband. She has not filed any documents to show that she was residing in the aforesaid house after the death of her husband and till filing of this case. Further, the complainant has not proved any act of domestic violence committed upon her by the respondents. It is not proved that she was forcibly thrown out from the property, therefore, she has failed to prove that she is aggrieved person herein and is entitled to any relief under this Act. The application filed by the complainant is dismissed….”

************************************************

IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN: MM-03:
MAHILA COURT: SED: SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI

CC-237/1/15

Smt. Babita W/o Late Vinod
D/o Sh. Mool Chand
R/o 20/116, Dakshinpuri,
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi
at present resident of
S-70/10, Jhuggies,
Vijay Camp, Jal Vihar,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi …….Complainant

Versus

1. Rekha W/o Jai Kisan @ Babili (Sister in law)

2. Jai Kishan @ Babli (Brother in law)
Both Residents of:
20/116, Dakshinpuri Extn.,
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi-110062. …… Respondents

Date of institution of case : 07.09.2013
Date of Reserving order : 14.12.2015
Date of Order : 19.12.2015
FINAL ORDER : Dismissed

JUDGMENT

1. The brief facts of the present case are that complainant Babita was married with deceased Vinod on 25.05.1998 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies and three children were born from their wedlock who are presently residing with the complainant. Husband of complainant expired on 04.05.2000 (inadvertently mentioned whereas correct year is 2004). It is pertinent to mention that the complainant has filed the present case under D.V. Act against 6 respondents who are brother in law, sister in law of the complainant but notice of the present case was issued only to respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Respondent No. 1 was also deleted from the array of parties on 28.05.2014 and it is only respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against whom the present application was tried. For the sake of convenience, it is mentioned that respondent No. 2 is Rekha and respondent No. 3 is Jai Kishan (hereinafter referred to as respondent Nos. 1 and 2). http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

2. It is stated in the application that after the death of her husband, all the respondents started torturing her. It is further stated that the property bearing No. 20/116, Dakshinpuri Extn. is in the name of complainant’s father in law who has expired intestate and it is the first place where she kept her first step after marriage and lived in the said premises.

3. It is further stated that now for the last two years respondents are not allowing her to enter inside the aforesaid house and says that she has no right in the premises as her husband has expired. Respondents have broke open the lock of room where she was living and all the articles have been kept on terrace and lock had been put and dispossessed her from the said premises. It is further stated that the articles are in custody of respondents which are mentioned in Annexure D-1.

It is further stated that she had been threatened several times not to enter the house failing which she will face dire consequences. It is further stated that she and her children have no shelter to pass their lives except their share in the property No. 20/116 Dakshinpuri Extn. In this regard, she had given complaint to SHO PS Ambedkar Nagar. She is residing with her parents alongwith her children at S-7/10, Jhuggies Vijay Camp, Jal Vihar, Lajpat Nagar for the last two years. By way of this application, the complainant has sought relief of reentering in the house No. 20/116, Dakshinpuri Extn.

4. Written statement was filed by respondent No. 1 Rekha and respondent No. 2 Jai Kishan wherein it is stated that complainant has concealed the material facts. It is stated that she has filed the present case after 10 years from the date of death of her husband in order to harass respondents. It is further stated that there is no question of committing cruelty by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 since marriage of complainant. It is further stated that father of respondent Jai Kishan had made separate arrangement for their three sons and Siri Kishan shifted to H. No. 20/6 , respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shifted to H. No. 20/116 and complainant alongwith her husband shifted to Gautampuri, near Badarpur and after shifting to present house, it is the complainant who forced her husband to severe all his relationship with the mother, father, brothers and sisters. It is further stated that the property bearing No. 20/116 is in the name of father in law of the complainant. It is further stated that father in law of the complainant had three sons and four daughters and all were married at the time of marriage of complainant with their deceased brother Vinod and after marriage she came to house number J-46, J.J. Colony Dakshinpuri being the matrimonial house and at that time father in law of complainant has purchased three plots bearing No. 26/6, 20/116 JJ Colony Dakshinpuri and one plot in Gautampuri near Badarpur with a view to settle all his three sons there. The H. No. 20/116 was the residence of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 who are still residing there. The present application was filed after the death of mother in law on 09.07.2013 as an after thought. It is further stated that complainant never visited the house of respondent when the mother in law was alive and never claimed any right over the property bearing No. 20/116 JJ Colony Dakshinpuri. It is further stated that after the death of her husband complainant sold the house of Gautampuri which was purchased by her father in law and same was given to her husband. It is further stated that none of the respondent had ever committed any act of violence upon her. It is further stated that she is residing separately for 8 years and therefore no question of interference arises. It is denied by the respondents that they had broke open the lock of room where the complainant was living and articles have been kept on the terrace and respondents put their lock and dispossessed her from the premises. It is stated that since she is living separately at Gautampuri, question of opening of room’s lock does not arise. It is also stated that she had not specified what was the size of room, on which floor she used to reside and what articles were kept in that room. It is stated that averments are bald in nature and application is liable to be dismissed.

5. Thereafter, matter was listed for complainant’s evidence. Complainant examined herself as CW1 by filing her affidavit. She was cross-examined by respondent’s counsel and she closed her evidence.

6. Thereafter, matter was listed for respondents’ evidence. Respondent Jai Kishan examined himself as RW1 and Rekha as RW2, Seema (sister of respondent Jai Kishan) as RW3, Shakuntala (sister of Jai Kishan) as RW4 and thereafter respondents’ evidence was closed. Matter was listed for final arguments.

7. Final arguments were heard. Records perused carefully.

8. Ld. counsel for complainant has argued that the complainant has come to H. No. 20/116 Dakshinpuri after her marriage and it was her matrimonial house. It is further argued by Ld. counsel for complainant that though she was residing at her parents’ home due to torture of respondents for some time after death of husband but she had locked one room wherein articles were kept by her and lock of that room was broken by respondents and her all articles have been taken away. He has prayed that complainant may be allowed to reenter in the property bearing No. 20/116 Dakshinpuri Extn., Delhi. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

9. Per contra, Ld. counsel for respondents had argued that the complainant never lived in the aforesaid property with her husband after marriage. It is further stated that since she has not lived with them, no question of domestic violence arises and the application is false and frivolous and therefore liable to be dismissed.

10. Complainant during her examination in chief has exhibited her photographs with her children. She has filed photocopy of death certificate of her husband which is not disputed. She has also filed photocopy of death certificate of her father in law which is also not disputed. She has also filed her Election ID bearing address as 20/116 Dakshinpuri Extn. which was issued to her on 02.04.2002. She has also filed photocopy of list of articles. During cross-examination of complainant, she has admitted that she had neither made any complaint against her in laws nor sought any share in the property during the life time of her mother in law. She voluntarily stated that mother in law used to say that it is her matrimonial home and she has a right to stay during her life time. She was also convinced by her mother in law for not filing any complaint against her in laws and that is why she did not make any complaint and did not seek any share in the property. She denied the suggestion that she left her matrimonial home 3 days after the death of her husband. She further denied the suggestion that after leaving the matrimonial home in the year 2004 after the death of her husband she had come for the first time on 29.08.2013.

11. The case of the complainant is that property bearing No. 20/116 Dakshinpuri was her matrimonial home whereas respondents had taken the stand that the complainant was living with her husband at some other property in Gautampuri near Badarpur and she had never lived in property bearing No. 20/116 Dakshinpuri. This fact is falsified by the suggestion put by the counsel for respondents to the complainant in her cross- examination wherein it was suggested to her that she had left her matrimonial home i.e. property in question after the death of her husband meaning thereby she was residing in the said property even as per respondent before the death of her husband. Apart from this, respondents have also argued that the complainant had never lived in the said property after the death of her husband. This fact is found to be true during the cross-examination of the complainant herself as she stated in cross-examination she did not know date of death of her mother in law and her father in law, though later on she stated that father in law expired in the month of May 2000 and mother in law expired 2 years back. She nowhere stated that she was residing at the aforesaid address at the time of death of her parents in law. Though, she has stated that she was residing in the said house but she has not stated as to what room/portion she was occupying in the said house and on which floor. Applicant has failed to file any site plan of the property bearing No. 20/116 Dakshinpuri showing portion wherein she was staying. She has further not proved list of articles which were kept in her room. Though she has filed photocopy of Election ID bearing address 20/116 Dakshinpuri but the same was issued to her in the year 2002 i.e. before the death of her husband. She has not filed any documents to show that she was residing in the aforesaid house after the death of her husband and till filing of this case. Further, the complainant has not proved any act of domestic violence committed upon her by the respondents. It is not proved that she was forcibly thrown out from the property, therefore, she has failed to prove that she is aggrieved person herein and is entitled to any relief under this Act. The application filed by the complainant is dismissed.

12. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

(Announced in the open Court on 19th December, 2015)
( VANDANA JAIN) MM-03: MAHILA COURT,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*******************************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s