Category Archives: dv case after husband’s death !!

Woman earning 35,000 pm files fake DV on dead husband’s poor family

Woman earning 35,000 pm files fake DV on dead husband’s family who are poor and living on daily / meagre wages

A woman who owns the property in which she lives, and is also earning handsome amount of rs 35000 pm by bookbinding business, files a false domestic violence case, on her ex-husband, I.e dead husband’s family members… !!! She seeks huge monthly maintenance when the brother in law ( Jeth ) has retired and without money , and other family members are daily wage earners Eking out small amounts to make a living doing odd menial jobs

The respondents reply saying that the woman has taken away the book binding biz from the mother in law and this DV cases is to further terrorise the family


Ms Beena vs Kishan Lal on 27 August, 2010

Delhi District Court

Ms Beena vs Kishan Lal on 27 August, 2010

Author: Sh. O.P. Gupta

IN THE COURT OF SH. O. P. GUPTA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE – 02, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

Cr. Appeal No. 05/09
CC No. 364/6/07
PS Kamla Market
U/s 12 DV

Ms Beena W/o Late Sh. Raju R/o 2537, Mohalla Niyarian, Behind G.B. Road, Delhi -110006. …. Appellant

Versus

1.Kishan Lal S/o Itwari Lal 2.Sh. Kishori S/o Sh. Itwari Lal 3.Sh. Nitin S/o Sh. Ram Chander 4.Sh. Mahesh S/o Sh. Kishan Lal all R/o 2537, Mohalla Niyarian, G.B. Road, Delhi. … Respondents

Date of Institution : 22.05.2009
Arguments heard on : 23.08.2010
Judgment Announced on ; 27.08.2010 JUDGMENT

  1. The wife has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 30.04.2009 passed by Ld. MM on petition u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic violence act , 2005. At the very outset it may be mentioned that the appellant is widow, respondent no.1 and 2 are jeth of appellant, respondent No. 3 is son of another jeth and respondent No. 4 is son of respondent No. 1/jeth.
  2. The admitted facts are that appellant was residing on theground floor of H. No. 2537, Mohalla Niyarian, G.B. Road, Delhi and was carrying on the business of book binding there. The said premises were in the tenancy of husband of appellant and respondents No. 1, 2 and other brothers. Appellant contributed her share of rent. According to the appellant she had two minor children. Daughter Shalu is handicapped. After the death of her husband, the respondent, and their family started harassing appellant in one way or the other. She made numerous complaints to the police. She filed her affidavit in evidence.
  3. The respondent filed a joint reply pleading that the complaint was false and fictitious and has been cooked up. The husband of complainant died in August 1997. The complainant was earning more than Rs. 35,000/- from the business of book binding. Respondent no. 1 was working in printing press as daily wager and was earning Rs. 80/- per day. Respondent No. 2 was retired and was not getting any pension. However he was earning Rs. 36/- to Rs. 48/- per day. Respondent No. 3 was drawing salary of Rs. 2200/- per month and had to support his mother, one studying brother and one handicapped sister. Respondent No. 4 was a daily wager and getting Rs. 65/- per day. The complaint had been filed to deter the respondents from claiming any share in the business of complainant which she had taken over from her mother in law. They denied that they ever harassed or used abusive language.
  4. The respondents filed their affidavits in their evidence.
  5. The impugned order recites that the counsel for the complainant stated that matter on record was sufficient to decide the case finally and the same was not objected to by counsel for the respondent. Thus the matter was finally heard and decided on the basis of affidavits of both the parties.
  6. In appeal the grievance of the appellant is that Ld. Trial Court over looked the report of protection officer. In para 7 of reply the respondents have made bald and wild allegation that the appellant was living a loose life.
  7. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. At the very outset I may mention that in petition before Ld. Trial Court, the appellant prayed for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the complainant and her children towards loss of income and earning, Rs. 2,000/- per month towards house hold expenses. In appeal the appellant has added medical expenses @ Rs. 7,000/- per month, food, cloths and basic necessities to the tune of Rs. 7,000/-, school fee to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month, enhanced demand of house hold expenses from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month. I do not think that the appellant can claim something beyond the petition, for the first time in appeal.
  8. It is not clear as to what is the difference between food, cloths and basic necessities for which Rs. 7,000/- have been claimed and house hold expenses for which Rs. 3,000/- per month has been claimed.
  9. The counsel for the respondent urged and rightly so that the appellant did not mention even an iota of word about her income from book binding. Without that she could not claim any expenses. Not only this despite specific plea in the written statement that complainant was earning Rs. 35,000/- she did not no better in replication except simply denying that she was earning Rs. 35,000/-. This time too she did not come out with a counter reply as to what her income was.
  10. The report of the Protection Officer on which much reliance has been placed by the appellant does not serve any purpose. The same is simply reproduction of what the appellant told the Protection Officer. The Protection Officer did not make any inquiry from neighbourer and did not try to find out the truth. Form No. I & II attached with the report contain particulars of complainant, respondents, children. Date, place and time of variance as contained at page 2 of form No. I were never pleaded in the petition. Form No. II is the proforma of petition to be filed by complainant. The counsel for the respondents submitted that appellant is not entitled to any relief on account of loss in income & earning because the complainant nowhere specified as to what her income was and to what extent the same was reduced. Without that, loss any income cannot be calculated. The arguments appears to be convincing.
  11. The counsel for the appellant strongly pressed into service the allegations made in para 7 of reply. It is true that it contains certain allegations about character of the appellant which were not necessary. But nevertheless such conduct alone is not sufficient to grant the relief to the appellant.
  12. The Ld. MM has already directed the respondents not to evict the complainant and her children without due process of law. It is only the denial of monetary reliefs which have compelled appellant to file the present appeal. On the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find that the appellant is entitled to any monetary relief.
  13. Last but not the least fact is that during arguments in appeal, the counsel for the respondents stated that the appellant has purchased the house in which she and respondents are residing. Now respondents are tenant of the appellant. For ascertaining this fact I recorded statement of appellant in which she admitted that she had purchased the property from previous owner Mohd. Ibrahim about two years ago for Rs. 1,30,000/-. This fact alone is sufficient to deny the monetary reliefs to the appellant.
  14. As a result of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in appeal. The same is dismissed.

Announced in the open Court (O.P. GUPTA) on 27.08.2010 Additional Sessions Judge-02 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

Advertisements

43 DV cases for this season ! 43 cases where husband and in laws won and / or maintenance was denied to wife !!

I have been posting 100s of Judgments / orders on 498a, DV, Sec 125 CrPC and many related areas (please see this blog and you will see most of these). Recently I have started categorizing them for easy reference and benefit of readers. Some ago I had posted a summary of bail orders and yet another on 498a cases quashed by courts.

Here is an attempt to collate DV cases, where the husbands / in laws won.

Since money is the main target of most fake matrimonial litigation, DV along with Sec 24, 25 HMA and similar sections of SMA etc are now becoming the chosen tools for women to extract max moolah. Husbands and families need to watch out and protect themselves
I hope this compendium helps
Cases are listed with a # against each just for a count in this blog. these were also shared on other social media. This # series does not have any specific order . I’m only hoping I’ll have a chance to add more victories to these

May I request readers to liberally share these and add fresh cases as comments 

 

DV Series # 43 : DV 15yrs aftr separation!! MM grants maint etc. Husband runs 2 HC; HC quashes whole tamasha ! married on 8.5.1990 ; son born on 24.2.1991 ; separate since 1992;  divorce case between couple dismissed by lower courts; wife files DV in 2007 !!;  magistrate provides maintenance, money in lieu of residence etc etc ; husband runs to HC;  HC thankfully quashes the case !!! http://wp.me/p7s7-1hm

DV Series#42 : NO MAINTENANCE to wife under Domestic Violence Act as she has sufficient income and concealed it !! Practicing Gynecologist stops declaring full income on income tax returns; harasses ex hubby in various courts / cases ; demands monthly maintenance even though she earns more than ex-husband !! Completely denined maintenance http://wp.me/p7s7-u0

DV Series#41 : Wife earning equal to husband denied maintenance in DV. Sessions & Delhi HC ALSO deny maintenance! Residence also denied as wife getting HRA from employment! http://wp.me/p7s7-2dO

 

DVSeries#40: Poor Taxi Driver’s wife tries to get his mother’s house using DV ! Looses case on appeal. Wife is ordered to live with driver in an alternate acco. Without going there she tries other stunts and looses again !! https://t.co/7sPcN3008x

 

DvSeries#39 : DV just 2 harass husband + inlaws & waste time of court. Wife never came to court !! DV dismissed. JM Chandigarh https://t.co/CD6H8E2ZCd

 

DVSeries#38: Initial Proceedings in DV act are CIVIL in nature. Magistrate not issue summons u/s 61 Cr.P.C. treating respondents as accused ! Magistrate to tread carefully http://wp.me/p7s7-1dM

 

DVSeries#37: DV cases can be quashed u/s 482 CrPC. Gujarat HC division bench judgement – Nov 2015 http://wp.me/p7s7-1T6

 

DVSeries#36: Well educated employed wife resigning on own NOT entitled 2 maintenance! Only Kid gets maintenancec. Delhi HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Bv

 

DVSeries#35: Visiting in laws 5days is NOT dom relation so NO DV ! Only violence by person living n shared household is DV! Delhi Sessions court discharges all in laws http://wp.me/p7s7-21n

 

DVSeries#34: Wife files DV on 6 inlaws 9 yrs AFTER husband’s death! DV, Cruelty NOT proven, Looses case ! Delhi MM court http://wp.me/p7s7-20C

 

DVSeries#33:LOVE match 2 court! DV b4 marriage! 498a 307 323 AFTR marage. Sis in law runs 4 quash http://wp.me/p7s7-1PW

 

DvSeries#32: No maintenance to erring women ! DV case won by husband on strong arguments & facts. http://wp.me/p7s7-1MF

 

DVSeries#31: Beaten &evicted elderly M in law WINS DV. Sessions orders lower court 2 grant relief http://wp.me/p7s7-1PS

 

DVSeries#30: India becoming land of fake DV? Madras HC dismisses fake DV 2 settle property dispute http://wp.me/p7s7-1OV

 

DVSeries#29: Your Honour I doNOT know her, she’s NOT my wife How could I beat her or my brother mollest? what DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1Pl

 

DVSeries#28: NON disclosure of pre cognizance DV NOT dis entitle you from GOVT JOB ! Delhi HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1OL

 

DVSeries#27: Sister married 40yrs ago files DV on brothers 4 property !! MP HC decrees NO DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1Mt

 

DVSeries#26: Wife earning equal 2 hubby NOT get maint NOR residence under DV! Delhi Sessions Court http://wp.me/p7s7-1Mq

 

DVSeries#25: WIFE already making moolah in sec 125 CrPC cannot make MORE moolah using DV !! Del HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1p0

 

DVSeries#24: DV Act does not create any additional right to claim maintenance !! Del HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1q6

 

DVSeries#23: Raj HC : Wife who leaves 3yr old kid & goes away, files 498a DV Looses kid’s custody! http://wp.me/p7s7-1CG

 

DVSeries#22: IF paying maint in DV seek reducn of S 125 maintenance! MP HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1F9

 

DVSeries#21: Rare order (not the norm!) : NO arrest for NON payment of DV maintenance. Kerala HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fm

 

DVSeries#20: No DV cases on relatives (say inlaws) who are NOT in domestic relationship! Andhra HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Ww

 

DVSeries#19: DV case on elders, relatives etc quashed. Only husband to fight ! Madras HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1IF

 

DvSeries#18: Max 1 month arrst 4 maint arrears. No DV maint enhance by session court. Karnat HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fn

 

DVSeries#17: Gulf based NRI earng 65K pm 2 pay ONLY 6K to wife: Kerala DV case with LOW LOW maint http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fj

 

DVSeries#16: Husband can sell his house when he wants!! DV can’t stop that. Kerala HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fl

 

DVSeries#15:IF Wife can’t prove DV, children ALSO NOT entitled maintenance under DV. Bombay HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1wz

 

DVSeries#14:Need Cent Govt permission 2 investigate offence outside India Good case 4 DV, Dowry NRI http://wp.me/p7s7-1zE

 

DVSeries#13: 24 HMA Intr. maint reduced bcaz wife already getting DV maintenance !! MP, HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Bh

 

DVSeries#12: BOM HC : NO DV if couple not living 2gther not sharing h hold! NO DV 5yrs aftr dvorce! http://wp.me/p7s7-1yS

 

DVSeries#11:Wife Can’t return frm abroad &file DV 1yr aftr sepraton! Not in domst rel.ship: Bom HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1yG

 

DVSeries#10: Personal appearance NOT essential in DV case : Kerala HC : appear thru counsel http://wp.me/p7s7-1wI

 

DVSeries#09: Wife tries DV aftr mutual dvorc &delay! LOOSES @SC. SC supports 1yr timelimit for DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1×8

 

DVSeries#08: DV on inlaws 5yrs aftr huby death! Wife wants piece of house Dhingra ji send her back! http://wp.me/p7s7-1xu

 

DVSeries#07:SuprmCourt: If DV filed, police 2 make enqury frm family, neighbours,freinds, b4 case! http://wp.me/p7s7-1wJ

 

DVSeries#06: Wife’s 172 days delay in filing revision for DV case NOT accepted by Madras HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1×7

 

DVSeries#05: Womn caught lying in cross exam about DV & dowry looses case gets NO Money! Delhi MM http://wp.me/p7s7-1MV

 

DVSeries#04: Dghtr in law forcefully enter FIL’s house & tries DV residnce. Looses completely. http://wp.me/p7s7-1Nq

 

DVSeries#03: Live-in woman claims rape, DV, cheating, bigamy etc 9yrs later! P&H HC throws her out http://wp.me/p7s7-1Nt

 

DVSeries#02: Every failed marriage NOT DV! Fake DV case after 498a quashed by Del HC. http://wp.me/p7s7-1NG

 

DVSeries#01: Serial case filing wife’s DV quashed by Karnatk HC “nothing but abuse of process of Court” http://wp.me/p7s7-1Qj

 

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