Mother claims maintenance, compensation etc etc from Son and Daughter in law. She claims that she was “… subjected to ill treatment by the respondents causing physical, emotional and economic violence upon her….” However court notices that all complaints are regarding some property dispute and denies ANY relief. “….Hence, from the material on record it is quite apparent that the dispute is civil in nature pertaining to some property pursuant to which some quarrel between parties have occurred. From the evidence led, the complainant has failed to show the existence of a ‘domestic relationship’ since the dispute has arose. It is the complainant’s own case that prior to separation of family members, they were all peacefully residing as one unit. No instance of domestic violence committed during that time has been alleged. …”
While we pity hapless elders and mothers being thrown out of household, we are unable to digest misuse of DV act
Probably this is a good case where the “logic” / “ratio” can be used by husbands (please note this is a District court) . Please note that a “mother” may be judged differently from a “wife” when claims of DV are made !!
IN THE COURT OF MS. VIJETA SINGH RAWAT:
MM-03: (MAHILA COURT): SOUTH EAST DISTRICT:
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
ID No. of the Case : 02406R0005422014
W/o Sh. Tofique Ahmad
R/o House No.F-526 (Old No.D-115),
Extn.-2, Gali No.1,
20 Feeta Road, Jaitpur Extension,
Badarpur, New Delhi-110044 …….Complainant
- Mohd. Sajid (Son), S/o Sh. Tofique Ahmad
2.Sahista Begum (Daughter-in-law), W/o Mohd. Sajid
Both r/o House No.F-526 (Old No.D-115),
Extn.-2, Gali No.1,
20 Feeta Road, Jaitpur Extension,
Badarpur, New Delhi-110044 …… Respondents
Date of institution of case : 10.01.2014
Date of Reserving order : 30.03.2016
Date of Order : 01.07.2016
1.The present complaint u/s. 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) has been instituted on 10.01.2014 by Chanda Begum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) against Mohd. Sajid (Son) and Sahista Begum (daughter-in-law) (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents No.1 and 2) seeking following reliefs :-
a)Pass apposite protection orders as prayed in para No.5 of the petition.
b)To pay monthly monetary relief of Rs.7,000/- per month to the complainant towards maintenance.
c) To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for her intolerable sufferings and mental agony.
d) To pay Rs.25,000/- towards expenses of said proceedings and other legal expenses incurred by the applicant/complainant under compelling circumstances;
e) Prohibiting the respondents from causing theft of electricity by putting wire or otherwise in the shop at the ground floor of the shared household in possession of the respondents and causing mental and economic losses and harassment to the complainant;
f) restraining the respondents from creating any third party interest in the portion of the shared household in their possession or encumbering the same;
g) pass such order or orders under provisions of this Act thereby protecting the applicant/complainant from domestic violence.
2.The brief facts of the present case are that complainant is the mother of respondent No.1 and mother-in-law of respondent No.2; that she is the owner of property No.F-526 (Old No.D-115, Extension No.2, Gali No.1, 20 Feeta Road, Jaitpur Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044) which is the shared household; that complainant has five sons and her entire family which used to reside in the aforesaid property has now separated and two married sons live separately, one has expired but his widow and children are dependent upon complainant and one youngest son is also with the complainant; that respondents also have a separate accommodation but are forcibly retaining possession of one room at first floor and shop at ground floor; that husband of complainant is a rickshaw puller and to make both ends meet, the complainant needs the property in illegal possession of respondents. It is further alleged that due to the property being the bone of contention, the respondents have subjected complainant to domestic violence by way of physical assault and verbal abuses which have been complained against.
3.Notice of the complaint was issued to the respondent vide order dated 10.01.2014.
4.Respondent No.1 entered appearance on 24.04.2014 and reply on behalf of respondents was filed on 22.09.2014.
5.In the reply filed preliminary objection has been taken that no domestic relationship exists between parties and hence, no relief under this Act is maintainable. It has been denied that complainant has been subjected to ill treatment by the respondents causing physical, emotional and economic violence upon her. The ownership of property is disputed. However, possession as alleged is not denied by the respondents. It is also stated that the complainant does not meet maintenance from the respondents as she is drawing rental income of about Rs.21,000/- per month. It is also denied that widow of the deceased son alongwith her children are dependent upon the complainant as she is running a beauty parlour. It is denied that any protection order is required by the complainant as the parties are residing separately. Since, respondents did not appear, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.03.2016.
6.Matter was then listed for ex-parte complainant evidence. By way of complainant evidence, the complainant examined herself as CW1 and relied upon affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with following documents :-
a)Ex.CW1/1 police complaint dated 23.08.2013 to SHO PS Jaitpur.
b)Ex.CW1/2 police complaint dated 23.08.2013 to the office of Head Enforcement.
c)Ex.CW1/3 complaint received at PS Jaitpur vide DD No.25B on 11.12.2013.
7.Witness was not cross-examined as respondent is ex-parte. Thereafter, complainant evidence was closed on the same date.
8.Final arguments were heard by this Court.
9.This Court has thoughtfully considered the material on record and arguments advanced by the complainant.
10.The issues which are required to be proved to entitle a relief under the Act are as under :-
A)Whether the complainant was having a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household?
B)Whether complainant was subjected to domestic violence by the respondent so as to qualify her to be an aggrieved person under the Act?
Further, since, we are dealing with a quasi criminal proceeding, the proof test required is of preponderance of probabilities.
11.As per sec. 2(f), “”domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;”
The burden to prove issue (A) was upon the complainant. The complainant has averred in paragraph No.4 (e) of her complaint ‘that respondents despite having an alternate accommodation continued forcibly retaining in their possession one room at first floor and a shop at ground floor of the shared household despite repeated requests from the complainant to vacate the same.’ Further, the above is reiterated in paragraph No.6 of affidavit Ex.CW-1/A. Even in Ex.CW-1/3 there is a clear stipulation that respondents are residing at a rented accommodation and are forcibly retaining in their possession a room and a shop in the disputed property. The tenor of Ex.CW-1/2 and Ex.CW-1/3 is also to the effect that parties have a dispute regarding property No.F- 526 (Old No.D-115, Extension No.2, Gali No.1, 20 Feeta Road, Jaitpur Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044). Hence, from the material on record it is quite apparent that the dispute is civil in nature pertaining to some property pursuant to which some quarrel between parties have occurred. From the evidence led, the complainant has failed to show the existence of a ‘domestic relationship’ since the dispute has arose. It is the complainant’s own case that prior to separation of family members, they were all peacefully residing as one unit. No instance of domestic violence committed during that time has been alleged. Hence, the issue is decided against the complainant. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
- In view of finding of issue No.A, the present issue needs no consideration.
13. In view of the findings on issue A, all reliefs are declined. Complaint is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be given Dasti to the parties.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Announced in the open Court on 01st July 2016)
(VIJETA SINGH RAWAT)
MM-03: (MAHILA COURT)
SED:SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
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