Sakshi Rawal & Ors vs Pankaj Rawal
2015 Latest Caselaw 9592 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Order delivered on: 23rd December, 2015

+                   I.P.A. No.1/2014

        SAKSHI RAWAL & ORS                                   ..... Petitioners
                      Through         Mr.Rajiv Bajaj, Adv.

                          versus

        PANKAJ RAWAL                                    ..... Respondent
                          Through     Mr.Kapil Arora, Adv.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)

I.A. No.14274/2015 (u/s 151 CPC, by petitioners)

1. By way of this order, I propose to decide the abovementioned application filed by the petitioners seeking right of residence.

2. It is stated in the application that petitioner No.1 along with her two minor daughters - petitioners No.2 & 3 is residing at her parental home. There are only two bedrooms in the said house. The parental family of petitioner No.1 comprises of her father, mother, brother and sister. The sister of petitioner No.1 is pursuing Chartered Accountancy and due to paucity of accommodation, the petitioners do not have sufficient accommodation for them to live in the parental home. It is further stated that the brother of the petitioner No.1 is a bachelor and their father is also searching for a girl for him. In case, the brother is married, it would be difficult for the petitioners to stay in the said house, as the petitioners No.2 & 3 are of growing age and it is difficult for them to perform their day-to-day activities. Thus, the petitioners

have prayed in the application that the respondent be directed not to interfere in the ingress and egress of the petitioners in their matrimonial home, i.e. bearing No.G-57, Ground Floor, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015.

3. While deciding the present application, the facts are taken from the order dated 25th November, 2014 earlier passed by this Court. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the respondent while petitioners No.2 and 3 are their daughters; both of them are minors. It is stated by petitioner No.1 that the petitioners do not have their individual source of income and it is difficult for them to survive.

4. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner No.1 was forced to leave the matrimonial home along with petitioners No.2 and 3 after facing atrocities. On various occasions, she was taunted for not bringing sufficient dowry and for belonging to lower background. However, she left the matrimonial home only when the respondent physically abused her.

5. It is averred that the petitioner No.1 always wanted and made endeavours to stay with the respondent in their matrimonial home. However, she has often been harassed by her mother-in-law, father- in-law and sister-in-law. The respondent and his family members harassed petitioner No.1 at the time of birth of their both girl children, petitioners No.2 and 3 for not giving birth to a male child. Due to the birth of the second girl child, atrocities towards the petitioners No.1 increased.

6. It is further stated in the petition that the respondent is a man of source who has a wholesale and retail shop and godown at 1127, Main Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi under the name and style PAUL SHOES

which deals in selling of shoes and shoe products. The respondent also has business of finance money under security at Paharganj. He has invested money under shares, bonds, securities and life insurances. He is the sole in-charge of the business. The father and mother of the respondent are not dependent upon the respondent as they have their own source of income through interest on the amount which they have saved in the Bank Account.

7. By the said order dated 25th November, 2014, the maintenance of the petitioners was enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month.

8. Now, the abovementioned fresh application has been filed by the petitioners seeking right of residence.

9. Reply has been filed by the respondent. It is stated in the reply that the present application filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. Petitioner No.1 is employed with Cambridge Foundation School, Rajouri Garden and is earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Still, the present petition is filed as indigent person in order to avoid paying the Court fee.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent, during the course of arguments, submitted that the matrimonial house is not owned by the respondent, rather it is owned by the mother of the respondent and it is not a joint property. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any residence in the said property. Under these circumstances, counsel has clearly stated that the petitioners may not be allowed to join the company of the respondent in the matrimonial house owned by his mother only. Counsel has made the statement that as far as petitioners No.2 & 3, who are the daughters of petitioner No.1 and the

respondent are concerned, the respondent is prepared to take their custody.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that the respondent's application for custody is already pending in the trial Court. Petitioner No.1 is not working anywhere. She is a housewife. The children are very small. She has no resource of income. As a matter of fact, she is insisting that one small room may be provided in the matrimonial home so that she along with her children may reside in the said house. Petitioner No.1 undertakes not to interfere in the life of the respondent and she will not disturb in any manner the other family members of the respondent. Petitioner No.1 also undertakes that in case the respondent is agreeable, her parents will not visit the matrimonial house.

12. As recorded in the order dated 21st December, 2015, the copy of the proposed lease deed was handed over by the learned counsel for the petitioners whereby the landlord has agreed to let out the second floor of the property bearing No.D-33A, IInd Floor, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110015, on a monthly rent of Rs.17,500/-. Learned counsel for the petitioners has agreed that the respondent may start paying the said rent after the marriage of the brother of petitioner No.1 as well as after the execution of the final lease agreement between petitioner No.1 and the landlord as mentioned in the proposed lease deed. He further submits that petitioner No.1 is also agreeable in case the respondent will provide the same size of accommodation anywhere else, either near Rajouri Garden and Moti Nagar so that the petitioners may reside in nearby locality and even, the respondent may pay the rent directly to the landlord. Counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contentions, has relied upon a decision given by the Division Bench

of this Court in the case of Navneet Arora v. Surender Kaur & Ors., 2014(145) DRJ 199 (DB).

13. Learned counsel for the respondent is not agreeable to any of the above suggestions given by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Even the respondent is not present when the matter is taken up today, despite the orders passed by this Court to this effect. On the last date also, he did not present himself.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent is already paying Rs.15,000/- as maintenance to the petitioners as well as the school fee of the petitioners No.2 & 3. Therefore, he is unable to pay the rental charges to the petitioners.

15. Having considered the entire gamut of the matter and the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court fails to understand why the respondent is not agreeable to any condition put by petitioner No.1. The respondent is not agreeable to give one room to the petitioners to accommodate themselves in the matrimonial home; he is also not agreeable to pay reasonable amount; he is also not agreeable to settle the matter with the petitioners and also not agreeable to pay the rental charges for the residence of the petitioners in a similar accommodation. Prima-facie, it has come on the record that the father of the respondent is not quite well who is suffering from serious ailments. It appears that he is operating the commercial shop in Paharganj area. Under these circumstances, it will be appropriate that without prejudice, in case after the marriage of the brother of petitioner No.1 she wishes to take the rental property in Moti Nagar or Rajouri Garden or any area nearby, she will communicate the respondent by Regd. A.D. post, along with the copy of the lease agreement, provided that the rent must be not more than Rs.15,000/-

per month, which shall be paid by the respondent from the respective dates.

16. The application is accordingly disposed of. I.P.A. No.1/2014 List on 15th March, 2016.

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE DECEMBER 23, 2015