Wife files DV on in laws 5 years after hubby's death!! Seeks right to reside in ancestral property far away from her actual place of living !!! Dhingra ji sets aside lower court orders & sends ablaa back !! Classic discussion on domestic relationship and when such relationship should have subsisted
Brief notes
******************
* Kaushar Bano was married to Zahid Khan on 16th March, 1994.
* 1st child, a female, born at Bulandshahar on 23 rd June, 1997
* Hubby and wife separate from rest of pariwar and and move to Delhi after that
* 2nd male child Shahid born on 22nd December, 1998 at House No. 5, Gali Masjidwali No. 1, Babarpur, Shahadara, DELHI-32
* Hubby listed as a doctor in community directory living in DELHI
* Zahid Khan died on 14th November, 2002, at DELHI
* After his death, ablaa wife files dowry etc case on in laws, gives address as House No. 5, Gali Masjidwali No. 1, Babarpur, Shahadara, DELHI - 32 in that case
* Till this point there is NO mention of a shared household and rights to shared household at Bulandshahar
* on 6th August, 2007, wife files DV seeking right to residence at property where petitioners were living i.e. District Bulandshahar, U.P.
* but the BIL say that property belongs to the MIL !! Initially the MM court rejects wife's case and says NO right to residence in MIL's property
* Unfortunately MIL dies intestate on 4th June, 2008
* Once again wife tries right of residence and this time the MM court and sessions court gives her right to residence !!
* This time (when MIl is dead) The MM court and Sessions court seem to give her right to residence !! in ancestral property because her dead husband should have got a share !!
* In laws appeal to Delhi HC
* Delhi HC , Hon. DHINGRA ji sets aside all lower court orders and explains why there is NO shared houshold and sends the case back
* Classic discussion on "shared household" and when (what point of time) the parties should have been in shared household
*****************************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. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. 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 or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). 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
******************************************************************
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 2010
Date of Order: 20th September, 2010
CRL.M.C. 4159/2009, Crl. M.A. No. 14141/2009
ADIL & ORS. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. N.K. Handa, Adv.
Versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent Through Ms Rakhi Dubey, Adv. for R-2 along with R-2 in person.
Mr Sunil Sharma, APP for the State
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
SI Beena Thakur, Investigating Officer
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT
1. By this petition the petitioners have assailed orders dated 30th November, 2009, and 6th November, 2009, passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM).
2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent Kaushar Bano was married to Zahid Khan, brother of the three petitioners on 16th March, 1994. Zahid Khan died on 14th November, 2002, at Delhi. After his death, Kaushar Bano filed an FIR on 26th July, 2003 against the petitioners and her mother-in-law and other relatives making various allegations of cruelty, dowry demand etc. In this FIR, she gave her residence as House No. 5, Gali Masjidwali No. 1, Babarpur, Shahadara, Delhi - 32.
3. After coming into force of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short Domestic Violence Act), she filed an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act on 6th August, 2007, and also made an application for interim relief under Section 23 of Domestic Violence Act seeking right of residence in the property where petitioners were living i.e. District Bulandshahar, U.P. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
4. The Court of MM passed an order dated 19 th April, 2008, observing that the property, in which right of residence was being sought by Kaushar Bano, was a property of her mother-in-law and cannot be termed as shared household. She, therefore, dismissed the application for interim relief and fixed the case for evidence giving an opportunity to prove the facts.
5. Against this order Kaushar Bano preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the mother-in-law of Kaushar Bano i.e. mother of the present petitioners, expired on 4th June, 2008, and after her death, the question whether the property constituted shared house-hold would be required to be gone into by the MM again and the MM would determine if the appellant would be entitled to a relief in the changed circumstances since the property (matrimonial home) was indeed not in the name of any of the respondents i.e. the present petitioners, their mother having expired. She remanded back the matter to MM vide her order dated 27th November, 2008.
6. After the matter was remanded back, learned MM reconsidered the application under Section 23 of Domestic Violence Act and passed order dated 6th November, 2009 observing that respondent had a right to live in the property at Bulandshahar. It was brought to the notice of the MM that present petitioners have filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D., Bulandshahar, U.P. in respect of same property, wherein wife Kaushar Bano was made as a respondent.
7. The learned MM allowed application of wife observing that vide order dated 19th April, 2008, the interim relief was refused to Kaushar Bano on the ground that house in Bulandshahar did not constitute a shared household as no document was on record to show that property was one in which the husband had a right or it was exclusive property of mother-in-law. She observed that, prima facie, the interim order was refused to Kaushar Bano on the ground that property belonged to mother-in-law, but the stand taken by the present petitioners was contrary to the reply filed by them later on where they had taken a stand that house in question belonged to their father and a settlement/Will was executed by him. She observed that since the earlier stand taken before the Court was that the property belonged to their mother and mother had expired intestate, deceased husband of Kaushar Bano being a son had a right in the property in question, hence the property can be termed as shared household. She, therefore, held that Kaushar Bano had a right of residence in the property in Town Gulaothi, District Bulandshahar, U.P. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
8. Against this order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who observed that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the learned MM and the property could be termed as shared household within the definition as given in Section 2(s) Act. Vide order dated 30th November, 2009 the learned MM called upon the site plan of the property and she directed a portion of the property to be handed over to Kaushar Bano.
9. A perusal of the FIR dated 23rd July, 2003 lodged by Kaushar Bano against her in laws would show that her husband was a Doctor and had started practicing in Delhi, though the date of shifting to Delhi has been kept vague in the complaint. Her complaint also shows that birth of her first child, a female, had taken place at Bulandshahar on 23 rd June, 1997, whereas male child Shahid was born on 22nd December, 1998 at House No. 5, Gali Masjidwali No. 1, Babarpur, Shahadara, Delhi-32. The complaint also gives an impression that her husband had separated from his other brothers sometime in 1998-1999, when she alleged that her dowry articles and Istridhan were misappropriated and she started residing at Delhi with her husband. Her husband died on 14th November, 2002 at Delhi. A perusal of directory of community of the petitioners, released by Delhi Government, shows that it contained the names of entire family members of Kaushar Bano, her husband and three children. The address given in the directory is A-5, Main Gali Masjid Wali, Babar Pur, Shahdara, Delhi-32. Her husband Zahid Khan has been shown as a Doctor and three children of couple namely Shahrukh, Heena and Sahil find mention in director. A perusal of Voters? List of Babarpur of year 2003 would also show that names of Kaushar Bano and her husband appear in Voters? List of Babarpur. It appears couple had separated from rest of the family about 8 years before filing of application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
10. It is apparent from the perusal of the order of Trial Court and Appellate Court that both, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court mis-directed themselves and did not consider the relevant provision of the Domestic Violence Act. Under Domestic Violence Act, the first pre-condition is that the applicant must be an aggrieved person. Aggrieved person is a person defined in Section 2 (a) of the Act. The domestic relationship must be there between the aggrieved person and respondent to invoke Domestic Violence Act.
This Court had clarified the legal position in respect of domestic relationship in Vijay Verma Vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr., Criminal Misc. No. 3878 of 2009 and observed as under:
"5. Filing of a petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by the petitioner taking shelter of domestic relationship and domestic violence needs to be considered so that this Act is not misused to settle property disputes. Domestic relationship is defined under the Act in Section 2(f) as under:
"(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."
6. A perusal of this provision makes it clear that domestic relationship arises in respect of an aggrieved person if the aggrieved person had lived together with the respondent in a shared household. This living together can be either soon before filing of petition or „at any point of time?. The problem arises with the meaning of phrase "at any point of time". Does that mean that living together at any stage in the past would give right to a person to become aggrieved person to claim domestic relationship? I consider that "at any point of time" under the Act only means where an aggrieved person has been continuously living in the shared household as a matter of right but for some reason the aggrieved person has to leave the house temporarily and when she returns, she is not allowed to enjoy her right to live in the property. However, "at any point of time" cannot be defined as "at any point of time in the past" whether the right to live survives or not. For example if there is a joint family where father has several sons with daughters-in-law living in a house and ultimately sons, one by one or together, decide that they should live separate with their own families and they establish separate household and start living with their respective families separately at different places; can it be said that wife of each of the sons can claim a right to live in the house of father-in-law because at one point of time she along with her husband had lived in the shared household. If this meaning is given to the shared household then the whole purpose of Domestic Violence Act shall stand defeated. Where a family member leaves the shared household to establish his own household, and actually establishes his own household, he cannot claim to have a right to move an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on the basis of domestic relationship. Domestic relationship comes to an end once the son along with 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. Such son, daughter, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, if they have any right in the property say because of coparcenary or because of inheritance, such right can be claimed by an independent civil suit and an application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act cannot be filed by a person who has established his separate household and ceased to have a domestic relationship. Domestic relationship continues so long as the parties live under the same roof and enjoy living together in a shared household. Only a compelled or temporarily going out by aggrieved person shall fall in phrase „at any point of time?, say, wife has gone to her parents house or to a relative or some other female member has gone to live with her some relative, and, all her articles and belongings remain within the same household and she has not left the household permanently, the domestic relationship continues. However, where the living together has been given up and a separate household is established and belongings are removed, domestic relationship comes to an end and a relationship of being relatives of each other survives. This is very normal in families that a person whether, a male or a female attains self sufficiency after education or otherwise and takes a job lives in some other city or country, enjoys life there, settles home there. He cannot be said to have domestic relationship with the persons whom he left behind. His relationship that of a brother and sister, father and son, father and daughter, father and daughter-in-law etc survives but the domestic relationship of living in a joint household would not survive & comes to an end."
(emphasis added)
11. In this case it could not have been decided by the Court of MM without recording evidence as to whether any domestic relationship existed between the parties on the date of filing application or soon before that in accordance with law laid down by this Court. It must be kept in mind that resort of Domestic Violence Act cannot be done to enforce property rights. For enforcement of property rights, the parties are supposed to approach civil court. Resort to Domestic Violence Act can be done only where there is urgent requirement of wife to be maintained and provided residence when because of domestic violence, she had been rendered homeless and she had lost source of maintenance. Domestic Violence Act is not meant to enforce the legal rights of property, neither an interim order can be passed without first prima facie coming to conclusion that a domestic relationship existed between the parties and the applicant was an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act. In the present case, the order of learned MM and learned ASJ is absolutely silent as to how respondent was an aggrieved person and how a domestic relationship existed between her and petitioners.
12. I, therefore, set aside the orders dated 6th November, 2009 and 30th November, 2009 of learned MM. Learned MM shall record evidence first and decide whether a domestic relationship existed between the parties and whether the applicant fell within the scope of „aggrieved person? as defined in Section 2(a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and then pass appropriate order.
September 20, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
'என் கணவர் ரமேஷை இரண்டு நாட்களாகக் காணவில்லை' என்று கடந்த 17-ம் தேதி இரவு சீர்காழி காவல் நிலையத்தில் துர்காதேவி என்ற 30 வயது மதிக்கத்தக்க பெண் புகார் அளித்தார். விசாரணையில் முன்னுக்குப் பின் முரணாகப் பேசியதால், அவர் மீதே போலீஸாருக்கு சந்தேகம் ஏற்பட்டது. அவருடைய செல்போன் இன்கம்மிங், அவுட்கோயிங் விவரங்களை ஆராய்ந்தபோது, குறிப்பிட்ட ஒரு எண்ணுக்கு அடிக்கடி பேசியது தெரிந்தது. அந்த எண்ணுக்குச் சொந்தக்காரர், புத்தமங்கலத்தைச் சேர்ந்த பிரபு. போலீஸார் சந்தேகப்பட்டது சரிதான். கள்ளக்காதல் காரணமாக ரமேஷ் கொலை செய்யப்பட்டுவிட்டார்.
வேறு ஒருவருடன் போய்விட்டாள். கல்யாணம் நின¢றுவிடக்கூடாது என்பதற்காக, ரமேஷ§க்கு என்னைத் திருமணம் செய்துவைக்க முடிவெடுத்தனர் நான் அப்போது புத்தமங்கலத்தைச் சேர்ந்த பிரபுவைக் காதலித்து வந்தேன். என் விருப்பம் இல்லாமல், ரமேஷ§க்குத் திருமணம் செய்து வைத்துவிட்டனர். நானும் அவருடன் சேர்ந்து குடும்பம் நடத்தினேன்.
என்று பிரபு அடிக்கடி சொல்வார். நானும், 'நீ என்னை கல்யாணம் செய்துகொள்வதாக இருந்தால் அவரை எது வேண்டுமானாலும் செய்துகொள்' என்று சொன்னேன். எப்படியாவது ரமேஷைத் தீர்த்துக்கட்டிவிட வேண்டும் என்று பிளான் செய்தோம். ரமேஷின் போன் நம்பரை பிரபுவிடம் கொடுத்து பேசச் சொன்னேன். அதற்கு மேல் என்ன நடந்தது என¢று எனக்குத் தெரியாது. ரமேஷைக் காணவில்லை என்று அதன் பிறகுதான் போலீஸில் புகார் அளித்தேன்'' என்று சொல்லியிருக்கிறார்.