Tag Archives: delhi district court

Nor shared a household if parties residing in separate portions with separate kitchen. DV act not applicable !! No harassment possible 😂😂

In this classic is a delhi District Court clearly states that for DV provisions to become applicable a household should be a shared household and for such a shared household parties should be living under the same roof with the same kitchen and sharing the entire household.

People living in separate portions with separate kitchen cannot be considered as people living with in the shared household…

****

Neha vs ) Smt. Rajo on 5 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03
(SOUTH), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

Criminal Appeal No. 65/18

1) Neha
D/o Sh. Hira Lal

2) Smt. Dakha Devi
W/o Sh. Ram Dhan

3) Simran (minor aged about 15 years)
D/o Sh. Hira Lal
All R/o H-I/188, Madangir,
New Delhi-110062
……….. Appellants

Versus

1) Smt. Rajo
W/o Sh. Hans Raj

2) Pappu
S/o Not known

3) Pinki
………..Respondents

Date of Institution : 13.02.2018
Arguments heard on : 05.07.2018
Date of order : 05.07.2018

JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been preferred u/s 29 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred as ‘ D.V. Act’) for assailing the order dated 12.01.2018 vide which the application filed by the aggrieved persons u/s 12 of D.V. Act was dismissed by the trial court by holding that there exists no domestic relationship between aggrieved persons and respondents.

CA No.65/18
Neha & Ors. vs. Smt. Rajo & Ors. Page No.1/7
2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of present appeal are that aggrieved person/appellant no.2 Smt. Dakha Devi is the mother in law of the respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 is the daughter of respondent no.2 while respondent no.3 is the niece of respondent no.1. As per the averments made in the application u/s 12 of D.V. Act, Smt. Dakha Devi with other aggrieved persons namely Neha and Simran who are her grand daughters, is living at the house no. H-I/188 Madangir. The father of aggrieved Neha and Simran is working as driver while their mother has already expired. It is alleged that respondent no.2 in collusion with her other relatives i.e. respondent no.2 & 3, is harassing and ill treating the aggrieved persons by using filthy language and picking up frequent quarrel with them. Whenever, respondent no.1 was asked to mend her ways, she extended threats to implicate aggrieved persons in false cases. Respondent no.1 also threatened the aggrieved persons to vacate the house or else she will dispossess them forcibly from the house. The husband of respondent no.1 had expired in the year 2010 as he was suffering from HIV and after his death, respondent no.1 went to her parental home where she resided for one year but thereafter, she again returned to her matrimonial home and started harassing the aggrieved persons. As per the application, the aggrieved persons are residing on the back side of the house while respondent no.1 is residing in the front portion of the same house.
3. Trial court record shows that before issuing summons in the matter, the DIR was called from protection officer and as per the DIR, respondent no.1 as well as the aggrieved persons are residing in CA No.65/18 Neha & Ors. vs. Smt. Rajo & Ors. Page No.2/7 the different portions of same house and respondent no.1 has been using her separate kitchen for last 10-12 years. Whereas, respondent no.2 to 3 are the relatives of respondent no.1 and they are residing at their own house at a different address.
4. Vide impugned order, the trial court heard the arguments on the maintainability of the application and dismissed the application on the ground that there was no domestic relationship between the aggrieved persons and respondents so as to maintain the application under D.V. Act.
5. I have carefully perused the impugned order as well as entire trial court record.
6. Counsel for the has appellant vehemently argued that since the aggrieved persons as well as respondent no.1 are living in the same house belonging to aggrieved person Dhaka Devi and while living in the shared house, respondent no.1 has subjected aggrieved persons to the act of domestic violence therefore, Ld. Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the application at the outset for absence of domestic relationship.
7. On the other hand, Ld. counsel appearing for respondents argued that respondent no.1 is residing independently in the front portion of the house and she is maintaining her own kitchen and as such, there never existed any domestic relationship between her and the aggrieved person as they never resided under the same roof. It is further argued that respondent no.1 has never subjected the CA No.65/18 Neha & Ors. vs. Smt. Rajo & Ors. Page No.3/7 aggrieved persons to any harassment as alleged by them.
8. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that D.V. Act was enacted with a specific purpose to provide protection to the aggrieved person who lives with the respondent in the shared household against the acts of domestic violence and for claiming any relief under D.V. Act, there needs to exist a ‘domestic relationship’ between the parties. Domestic relationship has been defines in Section 2(f) of D.V. Act which reads as under:-
“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, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.
9. In Vijay Verma vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2010 (118) DRJ 707, while discussing the ambit and scope of term ‘domestic relationship’ as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act, it was held that “domestic relationship comes to an end” once the son alongwith his family moved out of the joint family and established his own household or when a daughter gets married and establishes her own household with her husband ……..domestic relationship continues so long as the parties live under the same roof and enjoy living together in a shared household.”
10. It is apparent that in order to make a person as respondent in a petition u/s 12 D.V. Act, there must exist a domestic CA No.65/18 Neha & Ors. vs. Smt. Rajo & Ors. Page No.4/7 relationship between the respondent and the aggrieved person. If there is no domestic relation between the respondent and aggrieved person, the court of MM cannot pass an order against such person under the Act. The definition of domestic relationship under section 2
(f) of the act speaks of living together at any point of time. However, it does not speak of having relation at any point of time. Thus, if the domestic relationship continued and if the parties have lived together at any point of time in a shared household, a person can be a respondent but if the relationship does not continue and the relationship had been in past and is not in present, a person cannot be made respondent on the ground of past relationship. The domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent must be present and alive at the time when complaint under Domestic Violence Act is filed and if this relationship is not alive on the date when complaint is filed, the domestic relationship cannot be said to be there. Reliance placed on Harbans Lal Malik vs. Payal Malik, 2010 (3) CC cases (HC) 543 wherein, the Hon’ble High court further held as under:-
“18. Thus, in order to constitute a family and domestic relationship it is necessary that the persons who constitute domestic relationship must be living together in the same house under one head. If they are living separate then they are not a family but they are relatives related by blood or consanguinity to each other. Where parents live separate from their son like any other relative, the family of son cannot include his parents. The parents can be included in the family of son only when they are dependent upon the son and/or are living along with the son in the same house. But when they are not dependent upon the son and they are living separate, the parents shall constitute a separate family and son, his wife and children shall constitute a separate family. There can be no domestic relationship of the wife of son with the parents when the parents are not living along with the son and there can be no domestic relationship of a wife with the parents of her husband when son along with the wife is living abroad. ”
CA No.65/18 Neha & Ors. vs. Smt. Rajo & Ors. Page No.5/7
11. Hence, though the definition u/s 2(f) of DV Act speaks of living together at any point of time in a shared household but, it covers within its ambit only those cases where domestic relationship continued and in said situation if the parties have lived together at any point of time in a shared household, the person can be respondent but if the relationship does not continue and has come to an end on account of parties shifting out of the shared household and setting up their own separate household, then such members can neither sue as an aggrieved person nor can be sued as respondent under D.V. Act.
12. Careful perusal of the trial court record shows that the aggrieved persons/appellants are living in the back portion of the house whereas, respondent no.1 was living in the front portion of the house but, they are living in their separate household having their separate kitchen. In the entire application u/s 12, it is nowhere the claim of the appellants that they have ever lived with the respondents in the same shared household as a member of joint family. The other two respondents are the relatives of respondent no.2 who are living at a separate address and even in the application or in the present appeal, their addresses have not been mentioned by the aggrieved person which shows that they are not even aware of address of said two respondents. In the DIR filed by the protection officer, it is clearly mentioned that respondent no.1 is though living in the same house but she is living in a separate portion and is having a separate kitchen for last 10-12 years. In said circumstances, it is apparently clear that there is no continuity of domestic relationship and hence, no domestic CA No.65/18 Neha & Ors. vs. Smt. Rajo & Ors. Page No.6/7 relationship exists between the appellants and respondent no1. Regarding allegation of ill treatment and harassment at the hands of respondents, the aggrieved persons may avail separate remedy under law but, the remedies provided under D.V. Act cannot be availed without establishing the existence of domestic relationship. Whereas, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no prima facie case of domestic relationship between the parties. Hence, I concur with the findings of the trial court that the application u/s 12 of D.V. Act was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the trial court. The appeal is found meritless and accordingly dismissed.
13. TCR be sent back to the trial court alongwith copy of this order.
14. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on 05.07.2018 (Sunena Sharma) Additional Sessions Judge-03, (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi Digitally signed John by John Doe Date:
2018.07.06
Doe 19:40:40
+0530

CA No.65/18
Neha & Ors. vs. Smt. Rajo & Ors. Page No.7/7
— Read on indiankanoon.org/doc/149025469/

Advertisements

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

 

Wife arrested 4 murdering mother in law HAS RIGHT 2 enter husband’s house on bail! Fate of Indian Men ! Delhi District court case !!

Wife accused & arrested along with her accomplices for murdering her own mother in law (husband’s elderly mother) applies for bail. Husband is visually impaired and is scraed of his life and that of his kids, so runs for injunction, restricting her from entering house. But husband is still given good advise on maintaining wife and sent away !!

image

Facts : “…..    2.3. The defendant had been conspiring to eliminate the mother of the plaintiff with an ulterior motive to grab the entire property along with the persons with whom she had been in constant touch. The defendant killed the mother of the plaintiff along with Azad, Parvinder, Jai Bhagwan and Pradeep on 11.08.2011. FIR no. 241/2011 was registered with PS Okhla under Section 302/394/411/201/120B/34 IPC was registered against the defendant and Azad, Parvinder, Jai Bhagwan and Pradeep for committing murder of the mother of plaintiff. The police had filed the charge sheet in the said case against the defendant and the said accused persons and charges under Section 203/201/120B/34 IPC have been framed against the defendant and the said accused persons vide order dated 19.02.2013 by the Court of Sh. Vinay Kumar Khanna, ld. ASJ, Saket Court finding a prima facie case against the defendant and other accused persons. The defendant was arrested on 20.08.2011 in the said FIR and had remained in custody so far. ….”

Further facts : “…. . However, the defendant’s bail application has been allowed by the Court of Sh. Lokesh Sharma, ld. ASJ, Saket Court, New Delhi vide order dated 29.09.2015. …”

Husband’s fear : The plaintiff apprehends that the defendant will now make attempts to forcibly enter the house of the plaintiff and tried to live in the house forcibly thereby endangering the peace, security and life of the plaintiff and other family members including minor children. The plaintiff is filing petition for divorce separately. ….”

Decision : “….     11. Further, the plaintiff has sought the relief that defendant be restrained from claiming right of residence in any manner in the suit property which belongs to plaintiff. Clearly, the right of residence to a legally wedded wife has been provided under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and it is settled principle that there cannot be any injunction for restraining a person from claiming a legal or statutory right. Therefore, by way of injunction plaintiff cannot restrain his wife from claiming a legal right which has been provided under a special statute…..”

 

more at

 

#FakeGangRape case fails @ court. Victims NOT believable, Kept making improvements to their versions !!

#FakeGangRape case fails @ court. The court feels that the so called Victims are NOT believable & made improvements to their accusations! All accused are acquitted after a long # of years (almost 11 years) to reach the sessions court ! What about #fakeaccused’s dignity?

After a henous gang rape accusation, the so called victims come out and keep making embellishments and improvements. After some time, they claims that the police have implicated some other people and NOT the actual culprits!! However 23 prosecution witnesses are examnied and NONE of them implicate the (false) accused. The court also finds the testemony of some of the key witnesses and one of the so called victims, un reliable !! The Hon frees the (false) accused. But that leaves us with the BIG question as to (a) was there a Rape at all ? or is this a case of a completely #FAKERAPE like we hear often these days ?

Doubting the claims of the Prosecution witnesses and one of the victims, the court states “…I find myself in agreement with the submissions of Defence that there was no reason as to why the allegations of bribery and pressure were not brought out by them before Ld. Judge at Pilibhit who recorded their statement under Section 164 CrPC. This, to my mind, clearly indicates that plea of these witnesses of having been pressurised by concerned police officials of PS Madhotanda may be an afterthought and accordingly, their testimony cannot be said to be of ‘sterling’ quality and cannot be relied upon so as to convict the Accused persons on the basis thereof……”

The Hon court continues with many similar observations including “…From the testimony of PW­1 ‘MK’ it is also clear that the victim has given different versions regarding the number of assailants who allegedly came to their house on the night of incident in question. She also admitted that on 17­18.08.1998, the entire police staff of Madho Tanda was made to stand and she was asked to identify if anyone of them was involved in the incident. However, she could not pin point any assailant out of those officials. Though, the investigation is silent as to why a proper TIP was not conducted, yet it has been admitted by PW1 ‘MK’ that entire police staff of PS Madhotanda and other police officials of neighbouring police stations were made to stand and the victims were made to identify the assailants which they failed to do…..”

We are left with the very serious question as to “…What is happening to my beloved India ..”, and “..where will we end if FALSE RAPES” keep piling up

more at

NO RELIEF under DV act because this is a property dispute !! Delhi District court !!

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

CC- 12/1/15

ID No. of the Case : 02406R0005422014

Chanda Begum
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

Versus

  1. 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

JUDGMENT

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.

AVERMENTS

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.

EVIDENCE

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.

ISSUES

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.

ISSUE A

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

ISSUE B

  1. In view of finding of issue No.A, the present issue needs no consideration.

RELIEFS

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

01.07.2016

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