Delhi High Court
Shikha Mathur vs Sushila Mathur & Ors on 20 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: February 20, 2017
+ RSA 57/2017
SHIKHA MATHUR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Saqib, Advocate with Appellant in
person.
versus
SUSHILA MATHUR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mohd. Qamar Ali & Mr.Amit Punj,
Advocates for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. On 15th February, 2017, when this appeal came up for hearing, learned
counsel for the appellant was heard on the substantial question of law raised
in this appeal and following order was passed:
'1. Counsel as above appears for the appellant with the
appellant in person.
2. After some arguments on not being able to convince the
Court that the instant appeal raises a substantial question of
law, the appellant who is present in person sought permission
to make her submissions.
3. The appellant submits that she does not want to press the
appeal on merits, her request is limited to the extent that she be
given one month time to vacate.
4. Limited notice to the above extent be issued to
respondent, returnable for 20th February, 2017.
5. In the meantime status quo be maintained by the parties.
6. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of
the Court Master.'
2. Learned counsel for the respondent who has appeared on the limited
notice, submits on instructions that respondent is ready to give one month
time to the appellant who is her daughter-in-law, to vacate the suit property.
3. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that substantial
question of law arises in this case and he wants to argue on merits.
4. Once after hearing the parties, on request of the appellant, that she be
given one month time to vacate the suit property, which request has been
acceded to, the appellant cannot be permitted now to re-agitate that
substantial question of law arises in this case.
5. The suit property No.C-21, Nizammudin (East), New Delhi-110013
was purchased in the joint name of respondent No.1 and her late husband
Sh.Rajinder Bahadur Mathur vide sale deed dated 29th August, 1975. The
appellant herein is daughter-in-law of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is
her husband and respondent No.3 is daughter of appellant and respondent
No.2.
6. The instant appeal does not raise any substantial question of law in
view of the legal position settled by the Supreme Court in the decision
reported as S.R.Batra vs. Taruna Batra 2007(3) SCC 169, wherein the
Supreme Court dealt with the legal position regarding the right of a
daughter-in-law in a shared household under Section 17(1) of the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005.
7. In S.R. Batra case (supra), the property in question belonged to the
mother-in-law and the defence taken by the daughter-in-law was that the said
property was a joint family property and therefore she enjoyed a protection
under Section 17(1) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, the
Court took a view that daughter-in-law cannot claim any right in an
accommodation which belongs to mother-in-law or the father-in-law as such
an accommodation does not satisfy the test of shared household
accommodation as envisaged under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence
Act, 2005.
8. The Supreme Court in S.R.Batra vs. Taruna Batra 2007(3) SCC 169
has held as under:-
'16. There is no such law in India, like British Matrimonial
Homes Act, 1967 and in any case, the rights which may be
available under any law can only be as against the husband
and not against the father-in-law or mother-in-law.
29. As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the
wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared
household, and a shared household would only mean the house
belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house
which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a
member...
30. No doubt, the definition of "shared household" in
Section 2(s) of the Act is not happily worded, and appears to be
the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an
interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to
chaos in the society.'
9. Since this appeal does not raise any substantial question of law, the
same deserves dismissal.
10. However, in view of the submissions made by the appellant herself on
15th February, 2017, seeking one month time to vacate the suit property, no
objection given by responded No.1 in this regard, subject to furnishing of
affidavit cum undertaking by the appellant with the Registry within three
days from today, the appellant is given one month time to vacate the suit
property. It is made clear that on failure of the appellant to furnish the
affidavit cum undertaking within the stipulated time agreeing to abide by the
same, the decree holder shall be at liberty to get the decree executed.
11. RSA No.57/2017 is dismissed.
12. No costs.
CM No.6123/2017 (stay)
The application is dismissed as infructuous.
PRATIBHA RANI
(JUDGE)
February 20, 2017
'hkaur'
