Category Archives: delhi district court

Educated #woman cannot be #Parasite !! #Famous #Delhi District court : Ms. Parveen Raza vs Syed Intekhab Ali

/////10. The appellant herself is a well educated lady having post graduation degree i.e. MA, B. Ed. and LL.B. and is reported to be more qualified than the respondent. She can earn herself on her own. She is not supposed to sit idle at home and be parasite on the earnings of respondent./////

Though this judgement is hailed in MANY quarters, please note that the husband has been asked to pay Rs 5000 p.m. with 10% enhancements in following years, so this is NOT a zero maintenance case

The key issues here are that (a) the wife sought Rs 25000 p.m. but failed and (b) the court dealt with the wife’s qualifications …so PLEASE USE THIS order with caution !!

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Delhi District Court

Ms. Parveen Raza vs Syed Intekhab Ali on 17 March, 2017

IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI

ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE­02 : SOUTH EAST

SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI

IN RE: Criminal Appeal No.204410/16
ID No.DLSE01­004414­2016

Ms. Parveen Raza
W/o Syed Intekhab Ali
D/o Late Sh. M.Y. Salim Raza
R/o H.No.82, COT, GF,
Nizamuddin West,
New Delhi . . . . Appellant
Through : Shri Dalip Singh,
Advocate

versus

Syed Intekhab Ali
S/o Dr. Anwar Ali
R/o 915, Haveli Azam Khan,
Gali No. Mochiyan,
Delhi ­110006
. . . . . Respondent
Through : Shri A.H. Khan, Advocate


Date of Institution : 11.09.2015

Date when arguments were heard : 20.02.2017 & 14.03.2017

Date of Judgment : 17.03.2017

CA No.204410/16

 

JUDGMENT :

  1. 1. The present appeal filed by appellant under section 29 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘The PWDV Act’) seeks to challenge order dated 27.03.2015 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (in short MM), Mahila Court, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CC No.6/2/12 Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin titled as “Parveen Raza Vs. Syed Intekhab Ali”.
  2. 2. Appellant had filed complaint under section 12, 18, 19 and 20 of The PWDV Act before the court of learned MM. Alongwith her complaint, she also filed an application for seeking interim relief for maintenance. The application of appellant was decided by learned MM vide order dated 10.06.08. Learned MM was pleased to direct the respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/­ per month of appellant from the date of filing of the petition. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick
  3. 3. Both the parties, feeling aggrieved by order of learned MM dated 10.06.08, challenged the same in appeal. The appeals preferred by both the parties was heard by learned Appellate Court and was disposed off vide common judgment dated 06.02.10. The appeal preferred by both the parties was dismissed being devoid of merit.
  4. 4. Thereafter, appellant filed an application before the court of learned MM for seeking enhancement / modification of order dated 10.06.08 in the maintenance amount. In her application, the appellant CA No.204410/16 Page 2 of 6 prayed to enhance the maintenance amount from Rs.5,000/­ to Rs.25,000/­. The application of appellant was decided by learned MM vide order dated 27.03.15. The amount of maintenance was enhanced by 10% every year pending from 2012 till the date of order.
  5. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 27.03.2015, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
  6. 6. On notice, respondent appeared through his counsel to contest the appeal. Respondent also filed detailed written reply to the appeal of appellant.
  7. 7. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri Dalip Singh, learned counsel for appellant and Shri A.H. Khan, learned counsel for respondent and carefully perused the material on record of the case.
  8. 8. Relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder for ready reference and for better appreciation of the rival contentions of both the parties:­“Now the complainant has failed to file any document in support of this application to show an increase in the earning capacity of the respondent or an increase in her expenditure. Similarly, the respondent has also failed to place on record any document to show his present earnings. However, this court cannot be oblivious to the realities prevailing in the society and inflation is one such reality. Cost of living has indeed gone up since 2008 and the living standing which could be maintained with Rs.5,000/­ per month in 2008 cannot be maintained with the same amount four years later. Also it is to be kept in mind that unless any specific disability or peculiar circumstances exist, in the normal course of events, the earning capacity of an able bodied person would only increase with time (till of course he becomes physically weak or old). Therefore, an annual increase of 10% in the amount decided in 2008 is certainly warranted considering that the inflation rate varies between 6 to 11% in India as per government statics, which are anyways on the conservative side. Therefore, the application is allowed and the respondent is hereby directed to pay monthly maintenance to the complainant by enhancing it 10% for every year beginning from 2012 till today. It is clarified that only an increase of 10% is allowed per year. Say for instance in 2011 the JD paid Rs.5,000/­ so in 2012 he will pay Rs.5,000/­ + (10% of 5,000) = 5,500/­. Then in 2013 he will pay Rs.5,500/­ + (10% of 5,500) = 6,050/­ and then in 2014 he will pay Rs.6,655/­ and so forth.”
  9. 9. A bare reading of the above order shows that the appellant failed to file any document in the court of learned MM to show that there was an increase in the earning capacity of respondent or there was any increase in her expenditure. Learned MM took note of the practical realities prevailing in the society and taking note of the cost of living in the year 2008 and in the year 2012, was pleased to enhance the maintenance at reasonable rate payable to appellant. Learned MM has rightly observed in her order that inflation rate varies between 6 to 11% in India as per government statics. Therefore, the enhancement of maintenance @ 10% per year is fully justified. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick
  10. 10. The appellant herself is a well educated lady having post graduation degree i.e. MA, B. Ed. and LL.B. and is reported to be more qualified than the respondent. She can earn herself on her own. She is not supposed to sit idle at home and be parasite on the earnings of respondent.
  11. 11. For the reasons discussed above, I do not find any infirmity or patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 27.03.15 passed by learned MM. The said order is based on sound reasoning. No ground for interference in the order of learned MM is made out. The appeal preferred by appellant lacks merit and same deserves to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.
  12. 12. A true copy of judgment along with TCR be sent back to learned trial court concerned. Appeal file be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open court today i.e 17.03.2017

(RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)

Addl. Sessions Judge­02
South­East, Saket Courts, New Delhi

source
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97277940/


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

 

Advertisements

25000 to MCom BEd Wife based on husband’s earnings. NO debate about why pay ? where’s violence etc Sad state of matrimonial life in India !

Rs 25000 p.m. to a well qualified MCom BEd wife, purely based on DV case being filed and husband’s earnings. NO debate about why pay ? where’s violence proven etc …. Do discussion about woman’s own responsibility to maintain herself !! Sad state of matrimonial life in India !

most women get away with maintenance the moment they file a DV case or a sec 125 case !! Here, a honourable court’s orders 25000 p.m to a well qualified Mcom BEd wife

In this decision, every aspect of the husband’s salary and deductions are discussed. A huge sum of Rs 25 K month is awarded, which is easily equivalent to 50 lakhs deposit in a nationalised bank (7.5% interest, 5% net of tax )

This is granted to the woman though she was working as Government primary teacher under U.P. State Government. Though She is post graduate in Commerce (M.Com), B.Ed. From Delhi University and the husband arguing that she can easily maintain herself ….

Throughout the order, NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING is discussed about who is the erring party, why should the wife be paid maintenance, has she proven domestic violence, why should a well educated woman be paid etc etc ?

Now ppl may revert saying this must be at the interim stage…which is PRECISELY my point… IF the “interim” stage means Rs 3 lakhs per annum and drags on for three / four years, what happens to “justice” ? and “merits of the case” ???


Delhi District Court

In The Matter Of :­ vs Sumant Sahni on 24 May, 2016

Author: Naresh Kumar Malhotra

IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA: ASJ­05 : WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

C.A No. ­5/15.

Case ID No. 02401R0055272015

In the matter of :­
Aarti Jain,
W/o Sumant Sahni,
D/o Sh. D.K. Jain,
R/o 42, Arihant Nagar,
Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi­ 110026. ………… Appellant.

VERSUS

Sumant Sahni,
S/o Late Kulbhushan Sahni,
R/o C­15, Radhey Puri,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi­51
Also at:
Colt Technology Service India Pvt. Ltd.
1st ­ 4th Floor, Building No. 4, Unitech Sez, Tikri,
Sector­ 48, Gurgaon­ 122002. …………. Respondent.

DATE OF INSTITUTION : 30.01.2015

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 19.05.2016

DATE OF DECISION : 24.05.2016

AND

C.A No. ­ 45/15 & Old No. 1/4/15.

Case ID No. 02401R0001902015

In the matter of :­
Sumant Sahni,
S/o Late Kulbhushan Sahni,
R/o C­15, Radhey Puri,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi­ 110051. ………… Appellant.

VERSUS

Smt. Aarti Jain,
W/o Sh. Sumant Sahni,
D/o Sh. D.K. Jain,
At 42, G.F, Arihant Nagar,
Punjabi Bagh West, Delhi­ 110026. …………. Respondent.

DATE OF INSTITUTION : 03.01.2015

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 19.05.2016

DATE OF DECISION : 24.05.2016

JUDGEMENT

  1. Vide this common judgment, I shall decide the appeal bearing No. 05/15 filed by appellant Aarti Jain against her husband Sumant Sahni against the order dated 24.11.2014, vide which the Ld. MM has directed the respondent Sumant Sahni to make the payment of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to the appellant upto 10th of each English Calender month from the date of filing of application i.e. 04.04.2014 till further orders. Ld. MM has also held that this amount includes the rental charges for the suitable accommodation as well. Respondent was also directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within five months from the date of this order. It was also ordered that amount paid or payable by the respondent to the complainant either in this case or in any other proceedings shall be adjusted accordingly.

The respondent Sumant Sahni has also challenged the order dated 24.11.2014 and filed CA No. 45/15. As both the appeals bearing No. 5/15 & 45/15 are arising out of order dated 24.11.2014, I am deciding both the appeals together.

  1. The appellant Arti Jain has filed the appeal bearing No. 5/15 on the ground that order dated 24.11.2014 has been passed by the Ld. MM without applying judicial mind and facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. MM has ignored the cogent evidences submitted by the appellant. Ld. MM has not considered the fact that amount of Rs. 25,000/­ per month is at lower side and same is liable to be enhanced according to the status and life style of the parties. The respondent has deliberately not filed complete information in the affidavit. Ld. MM has not taken adverse inference of the proved facts and the respondent has not disclosed his real income. The respondent has not disclosed about the bank statements, the bank accounts, income, investment and other assets. The respondent has not filed ITR of the previous year. The respondent is a CA and he has also done C.S from ICAI Delhi and ICSI, Delhi. The respondent is capable of doing multiple dimensional jobs and has multiple source of income other than the salary. He has intentionally concealed his income. The respondent is also visiting abroad and doing private practice. It is also mentioned that ITR of the respondent does not show his correct income. Ld. Trial Court has also mentioned in the order that respondent has not disclosed his correct income. It is also mentioned that respondent in his Jeevansathi profile has mentioned his yearly income as Rs. 15­20 lacs. It is prayed that order dated 24.11.2014 be set aside and the appellant be granted interim maintenance of Rs. 1,20,000/­ per month.
  2. The respondent Sumant Sahni has also filed appeal bearing No. 45/15 on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court has erred in law thereby directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to the respondent on account of interim maintenance and that too without any basis. The respondent in the present appeal Smt. Aarti Jain has failed to file complete bank statement. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that Aarti Jain is working as Government Primary Teacher under U.P. State Government and this fact is concealed by Aarti Jain deliberately. Ld. Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that the respondent i.e. Aarti Jain is a well educated lady, post graduate in Commerce (M.Com), B.Ed. From Delhi University and she has enough source of income. It is prayed that order dated 24.11.2014 be set aside.

  3. Reply to both the appeals filed by the respondent therein and they denied the contents of the appeal.

  4. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties in both the appeals and perused the records of both the appeals as well as Trial Court Record very carefully.

  5. Perusal of the file reveals that Aarti Jain has filed petition u/s. 12 r/w Section 18,19,20,22 & 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with the averments that she was married with Sumant Sahni on 06.05.2011. After marriage the respondent i.e. Sumant Sahni started demanding flat, a Honda City Car, gold items (2­3 tolas), cash of Rs. 10 lacs. It is also mentioned that she was harassed and tortured for not bringing adequate dowry. She has also mentioned that respondent Sumant Sahni is a man of means, well settled and monthly income of the respondent is more than Rs. 2 lacs per month. He is also having income from shares/ debentures and from private practice. The total income of the respondent is more than Rs. 2.5 lacs per months. The respondent is having properties at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, Noida and F­214, Unitec Vista, Sector 70A, Gurgaon.

7. In reply, the respondent Sumant Sahni has denied that appellant Aarti Jain was ever harassed or tortured on account of dowry. The complainant used to threaten him. She had taken all the jewellery articles and filed a false case against him. As per respondent his in hand salary is Rs. 95,000/­ pm out of which he is paying the installment of loan amount. It is also mentioned that complainant is a qualified lady and she was working as Government Primary Teacher under U.P. State Government. She is post graduate in Commerce (M.Com), B.Ed. From Delhi University and she can easily maintain herself.

  1. The Ld. MM vide order dated 24.11.2014 directed the respondent Sumant Sahni to make the payment of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to the appellant upto 10th of each English Calender month from the date of filing of application i.e. 04.04.2014 till further orders.

9. The respondent Sumant Sahni has filed affidavit before the Ld. Trial Court and in the affidavit he has mentioned his monthly income as Rs. 1,07,155/­. He has also placed on record the pay slip for the month of June, 2014 which shows that his monthly income is Rs. 1,91,786/­, Rs. 11,309/­ is being deducted on account of provident fund, a sum of Rs. 23,560/­ is being deducted on account voluntarily provident fund and a sum of Rs. 10,000/­ is being deducted on account of Matching Grant Scheme. Thus, after deduction monthly income of Sumant Sahni comes to Rs. 1,07,155/­.

During arguments, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that a sum of Rs. 45,940/­ is being paid by the respondent as house loan. This fact is not denied any where by the appellant that respondent has not taken housing loan and he is not making payment of Rs. 45,940 as house loan. Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that respondent Sumant Sahni has filed an application for change of home loan from HDFC bank to SBI and this application was allowed by the Ld. MM vide order dated 04.01.2014. Thus, it is not denied that respondent is paying housing loan of Rs. 45,940/­. If we deduct the amount of Rs. 45,940/­ from 1,07,155/­, the salay in hand of Sumant Sahni comes to Rs. 61,215/­. Thus, Ld. MM has rightly assessed the income of respondent to Rs. 75,000/­ to 80,000/­ per month and rightly granted maintenance of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to the complainant.

Ld. Counsel for respondent Sumant Sahni had placed reliance on judgment (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 372 titled as “Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs. Mansi Meen alias Harpreet Kaur”.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the appellant Aarti Jain has placed reliance on judgments 2014(I) TVT 461 (Del.) titled as “Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur & Ors.”, Criminal appeal No. 5660/2010 titled as “Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain”, Crl. M.C. No. 1859/2008 titled as “Rajeev Preenja Vs. Sarika & Ors.” and 181 (2011) Delhi Law Times 602 titled as “Jayant Bhargava Vs. Priya Bhargava”.

  1. During arguments, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for appellant Aarti Jain that respondent Sumant Sahni is also earning by doing private practice but no document has been placed on record to show that respondent Sumant Sahni is also doing private practice.

11. It is vehemently contended by Ld. Counsel for the respondent Sumant Sahni that appellant Aarti Jain is highly qualified and she was working at the time of marriage as Government Primary Teacher under U.P. State Government.

No document has been placed on record by the respondent Sumant Shani to show that Aarti Jain is still working as Government Primary Teacher under U.P. State Government. Thus, it cannot be said that Aarti Jain is working at present.

  1. In the appeal filed by appellant Aarti Jain, she has also prayed that residential order in matrimonial shared household be granted. The appellant Aarti Jain has placed reliance on judgments 2014(I) TVT 461 (Del.) titled as “Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur & Ors.”, Criminal appeal No. 5660/2010 titled as “Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain”, Crl. M.C. No. 1859/2008 titled as “Rajeev Preenja Vs. Sarika & Ors.” and 181 (2011) Delhi Law Times 602 titled as “Jayant Bhargava Vs. Priya Bhargava”. Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that the Ld. MM in the order dated 24.11.2014 has mentioned that the amount of Rs. 25,000/­ per month includes the rental charges for the suitable accommodation as well.
  • In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 24.11.2014 and the Ld. MM has rightly assessed the income of Sumant Sahni as Rs. 75,000/­ to Rs. 80,000/­ per month and rightly granted maintenance of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to Aarti Jain. Both the appeals filed by Aarti Jain & Sumant Sahni are without any merits are same are hereby dismissed.

  • Copy of this common judgment be sent alongwith the TCR.

    Appeal files be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance.

    Announced in the Open Court on 24.05.2016

    (Naresh Kumar Malhotra)
    ASJ­05 (West)/THC/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
    *******************************************************************************

     

    Dghtr in law forcefully enter FIL’s house & tries DV residnce. Looses completely Court throws her out

    Tales how how ABLAS TRY TO TAKE OVER AGED FATHER IN LAW’S PROPERTY !!

    Since land and real estate like house is becoming the biggest property in the hands of most Indians, daughter in law are now attacking such property. Many cases have come to light where irate Daughter in law try to take over assets of the father in law by forcefully occupying the same

    Here is a case where a daughter in law who had left the FIL’s place forefully enter the house and claims it is a “shared household” !! The son has left the father in law’s place and gone to a rented accommodation !! still wife tries “kabza” using the DV act !!“…Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 argued that suit property is the shared household of defendant no.2 and thus she has the right of residence in the same. …”

    However the father in law contends that (a) he has disowned the son vide paper advert and (b) the daughter in law is NOT residing at that place since MANY years and (c) that the son himself has moved out to a rented premises
    “…It is important to note here that the said reply was filed in January 2008 whereas admittedly a compromise has been entered between defendant no.1 and 2 before the Court of Sh. A. K. Kuhar, the then Ld. ASJ/ACMM in view of which both the defendants left the suit premises and started residing in a rented accommodation. This fact is admitted by DW­2 in her cross examination. The defendant no.1 is not residing in the suit premises as on date and as per his version the suit property is locked and under the possession of defendant no.2 has not been disproved….”

    Appreciating the evidence the Honourable District court decrees “…It has been held that as per the provision of Domestic Violence Act the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a ‘shared household’ would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member.

    The property in question in the present case neither belongs to defendant no.1 nor it is a joint family property of which defendant no.1 is a member. It has been proved on record that defendant no.1 is residing separately in a rented accommodation and nor in the suit premises which is the exclusive property of plaintiff herein. The allegations of plaintiff that defendants entered the suit premises in year 2012 has not been rebutted by any cogent evidence led by defendants. Hence, the suit property cannot be called a shared household. In view of the observations given above, it can be safely concluded that defendant no.2 has no right to seek right to residence in the suit premises. Accordingly, this issue stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants…..”

    Let us hope that there are NO further appeals and the property goes back to the real owner, i.e. the husband’s father !!

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


    The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

    Delhi District Court

    IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE­02 (SOUTH) SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI

    In the matter of : CS No. 369/13

    Panna Lal
    S/o Late Sh. Ram Chandi Ram
    R/o House no. 785, Gali No. 3,
    Sultanpur, Mehrauli,
    New Delhi …. Plaintiff

    Versus

    1. Chander Verdhan
    S/o Sh. Panna Lal

    2. Pushpa
    W/o Sh. Chander Verdhan

    Both Resident of H. No. 179
    Gali No. 3, Sultanpur,
    Mehrauli, New Delhi­110017 …. Defendants

    Date of Institution : 04.08.2012
    Date of Reserving Judgment : 09.10.2015
    Date of Decision : 12.10.2015
    Final Decision : Decreed

    J U D G M E N T
    (on suit for Possession and Permanent Injunction)

    1. This suit was filed by the plaintiff Possession and Permanent Injunction against the defendants.

    2. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession against the defendants averring therein that plaintiff had purchased property bearing no. 179, Gali no. 1, Sultanpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) from one Ram Parshad by way of registered sale deed dated 27.12.1979. That defendants no.1 & 2 are the son and daughter­in­law of the plaintiff respectively. That after the marriage of defendant no. 1, defendant no. 2 started torturing the plaintiff and also filed false case against the plaintiff. That in view of the strained relations between the parties, the plaintiff inducted the defendants as oral licensees on 10.12.2007 and allowed them to live in two rooms of the suit property without any rent or money consideration. That on account of bad behavior of defendant no. 2, plaintiff disowned defendant no. 1 by way of newspaper publication on 13.12.2007. That defendant no.1 and 2 entered into a compromise dated 14.11.2008 before the Court of Sh.A. K. Kuhar, Ld. ASJ/ACMM, New Delhi whereby the defendants left the suit property and started residing at a rented accommodation i.e. G­3, Jawahar Colony, Mandi Pahari, New Delhi. That in the month of March/April 2012, the defendants forcefully entered into the suit premises against the consent of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff has terminated the license of the defendants by way of legal notice dated 04.05.2012. That the defendants have failed to vacate the suit property. Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff.

    3. Upon service of summons of the present suit, defendants appeared and filed their written statement (WS) denying the allegations as contained in the plaint. Defendants in their WS stated that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit. That plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the court. Hence, it is prayed that matter be dismissed.

    4. Plaintiff filed replication to the WS of the defendant no.1 and 2 respectively denying the preliminary objections and other averments as contained in the WS. Averments as contained in the plaint were once again reiterated by way of the replication.

    5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 13.03.2014:­

    1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession
    regarding suit property bearing no. 179, Gali no. 3, Sultanpur,
    Mehrauli, New Delhi as prayed for? OPP

    2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for restraining the
    defendants from selling, disposing off, mortgaging, renting or
    creating any third party interest in the suit property? OPP

    3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present
    suit? OPD2

    4. Whether the present suit has not been properly valued for the
    purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD2

    5. Whether the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in
    collusion with defendant no. 1? OPD2

    6. Relief, if any.

    6. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW­1 by tendering his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.PW­1/1. He also relied upon the documents which are Ex.PW­1/A (site plan), EX.PW­1/B (sale deed dated 26.12.1979­OSR), Ex.PW­1/C (copy of declaration dated 13.12.2007 in newspaper), Ex.PW­1/D Colly (copy of legal notice dated 10.12.2007 alongwith postal receipts­OSR), Ex.PW­1/E Colly (copy of legal notice dated 30.04.2012 alongwith postal receipts), Ex.PW­1/F (copy of FIR no. 211/08), Ex.PW­1/G (copy of order dated 10.10.2008) and Ex.PW­1/H (copy of FIR no. 558/08). Plaintiff also examined two more witnesses namely Sh. Suresh Kumar and Sh. Virendra Kumar as PW­2 and PW­3 and thereafter, plaintiff closed his evidence. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

    On the other hand, defendant no.1 got examined himself as DW­1 by tendering his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex. DW 1/A. DW­1 relied upon the documents Mark X (copy of tenant verification report). Defendant no.2 also examined herself as DW­2 by tendering her evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.DW­2/1 and further relied upon documents Ex.DW­2/A and thereafter, defendants closed their evidence.

    7. I have heard the contentions of both the sides and also gone through the record carefully. My issue­wise findings are as under:

    ISSUE NO.3 Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit?

    8. Before proceedings further, I deem it appropriate to decide issue no.3 first. The onus to prove this issue was upon the

    Defendant no. 2. Apart from the bare averments in the WS filed by the defendant no.2, there is no evidence led by the defendant to prove the same. In absence of any such evidence, the onus lying upon the defendant remained undischarged. Accordingly, this issue stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.2.

    ISSUE NO.4 Whether the present suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?

    9. Before proceedings further, I deem it appropriate to decide issue no.4 first. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendant no. 2. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 argued that the suit property has not been valued properly as the defendant no.2 is in occupation of two rooms. Apart from the bare averments in the WS filed by the defendant no.2, there is no evidence led by the defendant to prove the same. In absence of any such evidence, the onus lying upon the defendant remained undischarged.

    It is a settled proposition of law that the plaintiff has a right to value his suit as per his assessment but the same should not be valued arbitrarily. Defendant has not led any evidence to prove that the suit has been undervalued. Hence, this Court is of the view that plaintiff has valued the suit properly. Accordingly, this issue stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.2.

    ISSUE NO.5 Whether the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant no. 1?

    10. Before proceedings further, I deem it appropriate to decide issue no.5 first. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Defendant no. 2. Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 argued that defendant no.1 has admitted all the allegations averred by the plaintiff which shows that defendant no.1 has colluded with the plaintiff to oust the defendant no.2 from the suit premises which otherwise she is entitled to. Ld. Counsel further argued that defendant no.1 is residing with the plaintiff and has stated wrongly on the record that he is residing at a rented accommodation. Hence, from the evidence led on record, it is proved that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant no.1.

    On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that there is no collusion between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 as the plaintiff has debarred and dis­owned both the defendants from his life and property and has no concern with either of them. It is further argued that the evidence led by the defendant no.2 by way of affidavit is beyond pleadings, hence, cannot be read in evidence.

    11. It is admitted on record by DW­2 in her cross examination that the deposition in para no.2 to 13 of her affidavit are beyond pleadings as the said facts have not been mentioned in her WS. In such circumstances, the affidavit filed on record by the defendant no.2 cannot be read in evidence. It is further important to note here that admissions by the defendant no.1 in his WS to the allegations made by plaintiff in his plaint does not amount to collusion between them. There is nothing on record to suggest that plaintiff and defendant no.1 has colluded with each other for ousting the defendant no.2 from the suit property as no cogent evidence on record has been led by defendant no.2. On the contrary plaintiff has made categorical allegations against the defendant no.1 also. Hence, this issue stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.2.

    ISSUE NO.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession regarding suit property bearing no. 179, Gali no. 3, Sultanpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi as prayed for?

    12. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that plaintiff has proved on record that he is the absolute owner of the suit property by filing on record the documents Ex.PW­1/B i.e. sale deed which has been proved by witness PW­3. It is further argued that defendants have forcibly entered into the suit premises in month of March/April 2012 thus having the status of illegal occupants. It is further argued that defendant no.2 is not residing at the suit premises but the same is under her possession as she has locked the property. It is further argued that a notice of eviction has also been served upon the defendants, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession. In support of his arguments plaintiff has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as S. R. Batra & Anr. Vs Taruna Batra decided on 15.12.2006. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

    Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 argued that suit property is the shared household of defendant no.2 and thus she has the right of residence in the same. It is further argued that as per the agreement between the parties, the suit property was given to the defendants by the plaintiff on 10.12.2007 and the same is admitted by plaintiff in his reply filed in the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act i.e. Ex.DW­2/A in January 2008. It is further argued that defendant no.2 has every right over the suit property and she is still living continuously at the suit property after her marriage. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled to any such relief.

    13. Admittedly, plaintiff has filed a reply Ex.DW­2/A in the proceedings under Domestic Violence Act where he stated that defendant no.2 has a right to live in the suit premises. It is important to note here that the said reply was filed in January 2008 whereas admittedly a compromise has been entered between defendant no.1 and 2 before the Court of Sh. A. K. Kuhar, the then Ld. ASJ/ACMM in view of which both the defendants left the suit premises and started residing in a rented accommodation. This fact is admitted by DW­2 in her cross examination. The defendant no.1 is not residing in the suit premises as on date and as per his version the suit property is locked and under the possession of defendant no.2 has not been disproved.

    It is further important to note here that the suit property is actually registered in the name of plaintiff as absolute owner of the same. PW­3, official from the office of Sub­Registrar has testified and proved the claim of the plaintiff on record.

    14. The only question remains now is that whether defendant no.2 has right of residence in the suit premises or not. I would rely upon the judgment placed on record by the plaintiff in support of his case which clearly establishes the proposition as raised before this Court. It has been held that as per the provision of Domestic Violence Act the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a ‘shared household’ would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member.

    The property in question in the present case neither belongs to defendant no.1 nor it is a joint family property of which defendant no.1 is a member. It has been proved on record that defendant no.1 is residing separately in a rented accommodation and nor in the suit premises which is the exclusive property of plaintiff herein. The allegations of plaintiff that defendants entered the suit premises in year 2012 has not been rebutted by any cogent evidence led by defendants. Hence, the suit property cannot be called a shared household. In view of the observations given above, it can be safely concluded that defendant no.2 has no right to seek right to residence in the suit premises. Accordingly, this issue stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

    ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for restraining the defendants from selling, disposing off, mortgaging, renting or creating any third party interest in the suit property?

    15. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Ld.Counsel for plaintiff argued that plaintiff is under apprehension that defendants may create third party interest in the suit premises which is solely owned by the plaintiff, hence, it is prayed that defendants be restrained from doing so. It has already been established in the previous issue that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit premises and thus have the right to recover the possession of the same from the defendants. The claim of the defendants over the suit property definitely creates apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that plaintiff is entitled to relief of injunction as prayed herein. Accordingly, this issue also stands decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

    Relief:

    16. As a consequence to my findings on the above mentioned issues, suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. Defendants are directed to hand over the vacant and physical possession of the suit property i.e. property bearing no.179, Gali No.3, Sultanpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi as shown in red color in the site plan to the plaintiff immediately. Defendants are further restrained from selling, disposing off, mortgaging, renting or creating any third party interest in the suit property. Costs of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly after payment of deficient Court fee on the relief granted within 15 days from today.

    17. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

    Announced in the open Court on 12.10.2015

    (Vishal Pahuja)

    CJ­02 (South)/Saket Courts

    New Delhi/12.10.2015