Mr. Ranjit Singh & Anr vs Simran Kaur
2015 Latest Caselaw 6203 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Order delivered on: 24th August, 2015

+                       CS(OS) No.2530/2015

       MR. RANJIT SINGH & ANR                    ..... Plaintiffs
                     Through Mr.Sudhanshu Batra, Sr.Adv. with
                              Mr.Bhuvan Gugnani, Adv.

                        versus

       SIMRAN KAUR                                      ..... Defendant
                        Through     None

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The facts of the case are that plaintiff No.1 is the husband of plaintiff No.2. Plaintiff No.1 is aged 70 years and plaintiff No.2 is 63 years old. They jointly own and possess premises bearing No.D- 12/B, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi by virtue of separate Sale Deeds.

2. The son Mr.Chandan Deep Singh was married accordingly to Sikh rites to the defendant on 1st December, 2008 at New Delhi. From the wedlock they have two children i.e. the eldest is the daughter named `Nayaab' who was born on 2nd October, 2011 and a son named `Nirvair' who was born on 11th July 2013.

3. After the marriage of their son with the defendant, they started living in aforesaid house of the plaintiffs. Around the end of 2013, as per the plaintiffs, the behaviour of the defendant towards her husband

and more particularly towards the plaintiffs saw a drastic change. The defendant would often lose temper with her husband and without any rhyme or reason pick up quarrels with the plaintiffs. Many allegations are averred in paras 4 to 6 of the plaint.

4. It is alleged in the plaint that the son of the plaintiffs was under great stress as he loves and has regards for his parents. He was not willing to share the same roof and had agreed to take another house on rent and shift there. Consequently, the plaintiffs son got another premises bearing No. J-104, Third Floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi on rent and shifted there along with the defendant and their children on 2nd June, 2015. During that discussion the defendant agreed to wind up her business from a room of the house of the plaintiffs and while shifting she took away all her goods including all paraphernalia relating to her business and so also all her belongings. Documentary evidence in this regard is placed on the record.

5. It is alleged that however, on 7th July, 2015 while the son of the plaintiffs was leaving from the plaintiffs' house for the shop at Shanker Market along with plaintiff No. 1, they found the defendant and her mother coming towards the plaintiffs' house. They threatened that they would be implicated in false criminal cases.

6. On the very next day i.e. 8th July, 2015 he left for pilgrimage and for prayers to the Golden Temple, Amritsar for a few days. But, on 9th July, 2015 at about 11.30 a.m. he received a call from plaintiff No.2 that the defendant had come to the house of his parents and had extended threats of involving them in criminal matters.

7. According to plaintiffs on 10th July, 2015 the defendant telephonically contacted plaintiff No.2 and not only enquired about the whereabouts of her husband but also threatened her (plaintiff No.2) with dire consequences. On the same day at about 6 p.m. the defendant along with her mother and brother came outside the house of the plaintiffs and started shouting filthy abuses at the plaintiffs. Later on the defendant went to the police station and lodged a false report against the plaintiffs and against their son. The defendant in the said complaint admitted that she was living separately from the plaintiffs in house number J-11/14, Third Floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi which had been taken on rent by the son of the plaintiffs.

8. It is mentioned in the plaint that on 18 th August, 2015 the defendant suddenly appeared again in the front of the house of the plaintiffs and started hurling filthy abuses and threatened once again to enter into the house of the plaintiffs forcibly. A complete CCTV footage of the said date is filed along with documents. She was also threatening to barge into the house of the plaintiffs, to occupy the house and to make the life of the plaintiffs hell. On 21st August, 2015 the defendant with her brother, mother and children came in front of the house of the plaintiffs and again threatened to physically enter into the house. She broke the CCTV cameras installed outside the house and since yesterday she has been squatting in front of the house along with her brother and few unknown persons. The CCTV footage of the said date is lying with the plaintiffs. Counsel undertakes to place it on record. Apprehending imminent breach of

peace, the police was informed by the plaintiffs. Rather the police took away the plaintiffs along with their son to the police station and detained them.

9. Learned Senior counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs are apprehending criminal trespass but also physical harm from defendant, her brother and mother. It is submitted by the counsel that defendant also has no right to enter the house of the plaintiffs or to occupy whole of it or any portion of it. The suit property is not the shared household of the defendant as defined under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The defendant has no statutory right to reside in the suit property contrary to the wishes and desire of the plaintiffs. The defendant has been residing in a separated rented accommodation who is not to interfere in the day to day living of the plaintiffs or to threaten and intimidate the plaintiffs who are senior citizens by calling them on their mobile and threatening them of dire consequences. Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that as far as grand-children are concerned, they are always welcome. Counsel also informed that the plaintiffs have been paying the rent of Rs. 22,000/- per month for their separate residence and undertake to pay in future also.

10. Counsel has also informed that earlier the defendant had tried to commit suicide in the house of the plaintiffs but with the grace of God she was saved. The divorce proceedings against the defendant are pending. He has also relied upon few messages exchanged between the defendant and another person i.e. Javed Shiekh, in support of his submission. In the light of said

circumstances, the plaintiffs who are the owners of the property, cannot allow the person who is having such behaviour.

11. Learned Senior counsel has referred the decision of Supreme Court in S.R.Batra and Anr. vs. Smt. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC

169. The relevant extract is reproduced herein below:-

"24. Learned counsel for the respondent Smt Taruna Batra stated that the definition of shared household includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship. He contended that since admittedly the respondent had lived in the property in question in the past, hence the said property is her shared household.

25. We cannot agree with this submission.

26. If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband's father, husband's paternal grandparents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, all these houses of the husband's relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist in living in all these houses of her husband's relatives merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past. Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd.

27. It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted."

12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion at this stage about the merit of

the pending disputes between the defendant and her husband (as the defence is yet to be raised) and assessing the situation which is of serious nature on day- to -day basis, it has become necessary that till the next date, the plaintiffs are entitled to interim protection. If the same is urgently not granted, the situation at the site would become worsened.

13. The urgent matter was received today from the Registry for today's date, thus the hearing was conducted and the following order was passed. Due to paucity of time, it was mentioned that the order passed on 22nd August, 2015 to follow. The order passed on 22nd August, 2015 reads as under:-

"I.A. No.17555/2015 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application is disposed of.

I.A. No.17554/2015 (u/s 149 CPC) This is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 149 CPC. The plaintiffs are granted one week time to furnish the deficient Court fee. Subject to the above, the application is disposed of.

CS(OS) No.2530/2015 An urgent matter is received by this Court. Let the plaint be registered as a suit. Issue summons to the defendant, on filing of process fee and Regd. A.D. Covers, returnable on 1st September, 2015.

I.A. No.17553/2015 (u/o XXXIX R.1 & 2 CPC) Issue notice to the defendant, for the date fixed.

Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs is pressing for interim order. Counsel has referred various paras of the plaint as well as the documents. The reasoned order to follow. Till the next date of hearing, the defendant is restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property bearing No.D-12/B, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. The SHO of the area is directed to see that the order passed by this Court is complied with Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be made within three days."

14. The present reasoned order to be tagged with order dated 22nd August, 2015.

15. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE AUGUST 24, 2015