1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the present criminal appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as D.V. Act) against the impugned order/ judgment dated 24.07.2012 passed by ld. MM (Mahila Court) Rohini, Delhi in complaint case number 155/3/2007 titled

2. This appeal is restricted to the order of ld. MM passed under Section 19 of the D.V. Act.

3. Before I come to the appeal in question, it would be expedient if I discuss the facts of the case in brief:

4. The respondent has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act and she sought reliefs of protection order, residence order, monetary relief and compensation order. As per the respondent/complainant, she was married and son of the appellant on 03.02.2005 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. It was further alleged that since the date of marriage she was subjected to domestic violence by her husband and his other family members. It is further alleged that her husband refused to accept her as his wife and the appellant herein denied the respondent to accept as his daughter in law. She further enumerated various types of domestic violence which were committed upon her.

5. After the completion of the pleadings, parties from both the sides led their respective evidence.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.17/13, PS­PRASHANT VIHAR,

6. Vide order/judgment dated 24.07.2012, ld. Trial court passed an order under Section 19 of the D.V. Act (Impugned Order) holding that House Number 146­C, Model Town, Ghaziabad, U.P. is a shared household and the respondent was allowed to reside in the said house during her life time or until her remarriage whichever is earlier.

7. It is argued by ld. Counsel for the appellant that House Number 146­C, Model Town, Ghaziabad, U.P. has been wrongly held by ld. MM to be her shared household. It is stated that the said property belongs to the father of the appellant namely Shri Deep Chand and no partition had been arrived between the parties and the appellant has only 1/7th share in the said property. It is further argued that the son of the appellant Anil Aggarwal has nothing to do with the aforesaid house and he is residing separately in some rented accommodation. It is further argued that appellant has already severed relations with the respondent and her husband and the publication to this effect has already been given by the appellant in Newspaper Punjab Keshri. It is further argued that in the cross examination by ld. Counsel for the respondent has not asked any question regarding the rental accommodation where the son of the appellant is residing and the son of the appellant has filed the rent agreement executed by the landlord and the rent receipts, but not even a single question was asked about the same. ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon following authorities i.e. (i) AIR 2007 Supreme Court, Page 1118, (ii) 2007 1996 D.R. J. 697 Delhi high Court, (iii) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.17/13, PS­PRASHANT VIHAR, PAGE 3 OF PAGE 7 ­:4:­ AIR 2009 Delhi 72, (iv ) 2010 DRJ (115) Page 88 and 2010 JCC 592, (v) 2012 (2) DMC (page 1) Delhi.

8. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has controverted the allegations stating that the property in question has been rightly held to be a shared household by ld. MM and it is argued that present appeal has no merits and it is liable to be dismissed. He has relied upon an authority titled as RFA (OS) 24/2012 decided by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 15.01.2014.

9. In the present case which is admitted that the respondent got married on 03.02.2005 according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. It is further admitted that after marriage they started residing together in House Number 146­C, Model Town, Ghaziabad, U.P., which was matrimonial house. In December, 2005 a child was born out of this wedlock. The parties have resided together till 30.06.2006 in the matrimonial house.

10. Now the question arises, whether the matrimonial house number 146­C, Model Town, Ghaziabad, U.P. is a shared household within the meaning of D.V. Act. Shared household has been defined in Section 2 (s) of the D.V. Act which reads as under :­ "shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.17/13, PS­PRASHANT VIHAR, PAGE 4 OF PAGE 7 ­:5:­ respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.

11. If we apply this definition in the present case in my view, this property i.e. House Number 146­C, Model Town, Ghaziabad, U.P., is a shared household within the meaning of this act.

12. It is admitted case of the appellant that this property is a joint family property and it belonged to his father namely, who is no more. It is further admitted that no partition has been arrived yet between the heirs. As per the appellant, he has 1/7th share in this property. If it is so, his son would also have share in this property by operation of law. How can appellant debar his son from the shared household in the property, when it does not belong to him solely. By operation of law, a grandson would have share in the property of his grand father after the demise of the grand father. Hence, in this regard, publication of notice by the appellant in the Newspaper is of no consequence. Husband of the respondent has right, title or interest in this property, where respondent has lived in a domestic relationship with him. Hence, it is a shared household within the meaning of this Act and it has been rightly held so by ld. MM.

13. It is the case of the appellant that, he was fed up with the acrimonious CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.17/13, PS­PRASHANT VIHAR, PAGE 5 OF PAGE 7 ­:6:­ relations of his son and respondent and that is why he severed his relations with them. His son Anil Aggarwal is stated to be living separately. Copy of the rent agreement dated 01.12.2006 has been filed by stating that he has started residing separately from his father and copy of rent receipts have also been filed and proved on record.

14. The rent agreement and the rent receipts shows that started residing separately after about five months of the respondent leaving the shared household. It is often seen that when parties are living in a joint family and when the relations became sour and the lady leaves the matrimonial house, the son is often shown and stated to be residing separately in a rented accommodation, so that, appropriate benefit can be obtained in the proceedings under Section 9 of D.V. Act. It appears to be the case in the present case as well. In the cross examination dated 23.08.2008 before ld. ADJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, has himself admitted that, he is working jointly with his father and having joint business. Even in the cross examination dated 30.08.2011, has admitted that he and his father do joint trading. This shows the true state of affairs behind false plea of the appellant and falsifies his stand regarding severance of his relation with his son. Moreover, this plea is of no help to the appellant, once it is held that this property is a shared household within the meaning of D.V. Act and it has been rightly so observed by ld. MM in its order.

15. The authorities relied upon by ld. Counsel for the appellant are also of no help to him and the same are completely distinguishable because in all CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.17/13, PS­PRASHANT VIHAR, ­ those cases, the property stood in the name of one or both the parents in law and the Court took out such properties out of the purview of "shared household", even if parties lived in domestic relationship in those premises. On the other hand, in the present case, property in question is a joint family property, in which husband of the respondent has right, title and interest.

16. In view of above, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

17. Trial court record be sent back to the trial court concerned alongwith copy of order for information and compliance. File be consigned to record room.

Tags:

#Domestic Violence Lawyer in Rohini Court, #Best Domestic Violence Lawyer in Rohini Court, #Top Domestic Violence Lawyer in Rohini Court