Raj Rani vs Kulbeer Singh Kalra
2021 Latest Caselaw 4179 Jhar

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    Criminal Revision No.907 of 2020
                                             ....

                Raj Rani                                             ....    Petitioner
                                             Versus
                1. Kulbeer Singh Kalra
                2. Gautam Singh Kalra
                3. State of Jharkhand                                 .... Opposite Parties
                                             With
                                    Criminal Revision No.04 of 2021
                                             ....
                1. Kulbir Singh Kalra @ Kulbeer Singh Kalra
                2. Gautam Singh Kalra                                ....    Petitioners
                                             Versus
                1. The State of Jharkhand
                2. Raj Rani                                           .... Opposite Parties
                                             ....
                CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

                For the Petitioner      : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Adv. [in Cr. Rev. No.907/20]

Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Adv. [in Cr. Rev. No.04/21] For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, APP [in Cr. Rev. No.907/20] Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP [in Cr. Rev. No.04/21] For the Opp. Party : Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, Adv. [in Cr. Rev. No.907/20] ....

08/16.11.2021 Pursuant to order dated 20.10.2021, the mother (Raj Rani) has appeared physically before this Court and after interacting with her, it appears that she is very old and her mental status is not stable.

The present litigation has been started by instituting a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by Raj Rani aged about 80 years alleging domestic violence against her elder son, namely, Kulbir Singh Kalra @ Kulbeer Singh Kalra and grand son, namely, Gautam Singh Kalra. The court below after hearing both the parties and considering the material brought on record has passed the order in favour of the aggrieved lady in following terms:-

(1) Protection Orders: The court passes a protection order in favour of the aggrieved person and prohibits the respondent from-

(a) committing any act of domestic violence;

(b) aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence;

(c) attempting to communicate in any form; whatsoever, with the aggrieved person, including personal, oral or written or electronic or telephonic contact;

(d) alienating any assets, operating bank lockers or bank accounts used or held or enjoyed by both the parties, jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or singly by the respondent, including her stridhan or any other property held either jointly by the parties or separately by them without the leave of the Magistrate;

(e) causing violence to the dependants, other relatives or any person who give the aggrieved person assistance from domestic violence;

(f) committing any act directly by himself or through any agency whatsoever which causes mental, physical, spiritual, emotional trauma or torture or harassment of any kind whatsoever to the aggrieved person.

This protection order made under Section 18 shall be in force till the aggrieved person applies for discharge.

If the respondents fail to comply with protection the orders passed by the court, then penalty under section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act shall be attracted.

(2) Residence Orders:

(a) The respondent is restrained from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household;

(b) the respondent is directed to remove himself from the shared household;

(c) the respondents are restrained from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides;

(d) the respondent is restrained from alienating or disposing off the shared household or encumbering the same;

(e) the respondent is restrained from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate.

The officer-in-charge of the nearest police station is directed to give protection to the aggrieved person or to assist her on the person making an application on her behalf in the implementation of the order.

The officer-in-charge of the police station in whose jurisdiction the Magistrate has been approached is directed to assist in the implementation of the protection order as well.

The respondent is directed to return to the possession of the aggrieved person all her documents as or any other property or valuable security to which she is entitled to.

(3) Monetary Reliefs:

The respondent is directed to pay monetary relief of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) per month to meet the medical expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence. This amount shall be paid by the 11th day of every month. This amount has to be paid from the day this case was filed.

Being aggrieved with the above order, the elder son and the grand son have preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2019 in which the maintenance of (Rs.40,000/- per month) has been awarded to the Raj Rani with stipulation that it will get enhanced by Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) each year. There was no stipulation in the original order for enhancement.

The Residence Order has been negated by the appellate court by considering the argument of the parties. For better appreciation para-11 of the Appellate Court judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

(3) Whether complainant namely, Raj Rani is entitled for Residence Order against opposite parties?

Regarding order for Residence in favour of the complainant no specific prayer has been made in complaint petition and only it has been prayed to oust the opposite parties from her house. Further stated at para 8 of the complaint petition that, on 04.09.2018 the opposite parties assaulted, abused, snatched her jeweleries and thereafter ousted her and being aggrieved by such

act of the opposite parties she expressed her will before the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma to donate her house to 'old age home' and since then opposite parties are creating mental and economical pressure upon her. But it has not been stated specifically that, in which manner they are creating mental or economic pressure upon her.

She stated at para 7 of her deposition during cross-examination as complainant witness no. 03 that, the house in which Kulbeer Singh Kalra is residing is her and she can file document in this regard but she has failed to produce any document regarding her ownership of the said house.

In other hand Photo Copy of 'Will' registered before Notary Public executed by Preetam Singh, husband of the complainant has been filed on behalf of opposite parties which is available on record. As per contents of the 'Will' she is entitled to reside in the said house holding no. 412, Ward No. 02, situated at Bishunpur Road in Bhadedih Mohalla, Township-Jhumri Telaiya, District- Koderma till her life and to enjoy all house hold goods and articles and no one can interfere with her but opposite parties also are entitled to live, reside and remain in the said premises with her and use the same as they were as then. After her death the entire premises will devolve upon his eldest son Kulbeer Singh or his legal heirs after him absolutely. The said property was self acquired of Preetam Singh Kalra, husband of the complainant and father of the opposite party no. 01. Original Copy of the 'Will' has not been produced and during course of hearing oral argument submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant regarding genuineness of the 'Will' that, he has received notice from the Court in the Probate Case regarding the said Will' and he has to file its reply in due course and at this stage he cannot in a position to either admit or deny about genuineness of the said 'Will'.

Further, photo copy of registered deed of 'Gift' of immovable property i.e. house Holding no. 1333 within Ward No. 22, Thana No. 12 having Khata No. 352, Plot No. 5666, constructed area 1204 Square feet and vacant land area 2238½ Square feet, Total area 3442 ½ square feet equivalent to 7.91 decimals, executed by the donor namely, Raj Rani in favour of her younger son namely, Jasmeet Singh Kalra on 04.07.2015. During course of oral argument Ld. Counsel for the complainant admitted the facts of the said 'Gift' executed by the complainant in favour of her younger son and further submitted that the opposite party no. 1 namely, Kulbeer Singh Kalra has filed a partition suit against other family members regarding the properties of his father including the said house under the 'Gift Deed'.

After considering oral arguments on behalf of both the parties and written notes of argument filed on their behalf as well as materials available on record as discussed above I find that, there were two houses of late Preetam Singh Kalra husband of the complainant, out of which one was in his own name in which he was residing with his wife and his elder son namely, Kulbeer Singh Kalra along with his family at the time of his death and he executed the 'Will' with respect to the said house in favour of Kulbeer Singh Kalra subject to the condition that his wife (complainant) namely, Raj Rani has right to live, use and enjoy the said house till her life with the opposite parties jointly and after her death its ownership and title will devolve in favour of Kulbeer Singh Kalra and the said 'Will' is under challenge in a probate case.

The other house of Preetam Singh Kalra was in the name of his wife namely, Raj Rani (complainant) and she has gifted the same to her younger son namely, Jasmeet Singh Kalra.

Admittedly, after death of Preetam Singh Kalra the complainant was residing in the house of her husband along with the opposite parties who is her

son and his family members but subsequently she has shifted in her other house which was gifted by her to her younger son namely, Jasmeet Singh Kalra and living with him. In these circumstances she has not required the said house for the purpose of her residence rather she wants its title for the purpose to donate it to 'old age home'. In this regard during exercising power of appellate jurisdiction this court is not competent to decide the matter regarding genuineness of 'Will' and title with respect to the said house allegedly under 'Will' by her husband in favour of her elder son and this fact can be decided only by the competent Court having exercising the jurisdiction for Probate & title. Out of both houses of her husband she has gifted the one to her younger son namely, Jasmeet Singh Kalra and other house is required to donate 'old age home' after evicting the opposite parties from it. She/has opted to live with her younger son in her house which she gifted him and residing there voluntarily and peacefully.

In view of these circumstances and materials available on record as discussed above I hold that, she has no necessity of the alleged house for her residence therefore, she is not entitled for order for residence in the said house under the provisions of section 19 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Being aggrieved with above modification of the original order, the aggrieved lady, namely, Raj Rani has preferred a criminal revision being Criminal Revision No.907 of 2020. Another revision application has been preferred by the elder son and grand son being Criminal Revision No.4 of 2021 and both the revisions are being heard together.

Raj Rani has grievance against modification order made by the appellate court, while the revision filed by the son has sought further reduction of the maintenance amount especially stipulation of enhancement of Rs.5,000/-.

It has been heard on certain dates and by order dated 20.10.2021 parties were asked to appear in person and for this purpose son has been directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the mother and also to make arrangement for her conveyance to this Court.

I have interacted with both the parties personally. Learned counsel for the lady (Raj Rani) has submitted that being shared household, she has resided in the said house with her husband and has raised her children there and as such she has right to reside in the said house. Further she wants enhancement of the maintenance amount showing the medical necessity.

From pleading and submission, it appears that there are various litigations between the parties which are as follows:-

Cases filed by Raj Rani as under:-

C Case No.1346/2018, C Case No.202/2019, C Case No.332/2021, C Case No.203/2019, Misc. Criminal Application No.104/2020, Criminal Misc. Application No.931/2020, Criminal Misc. Petition No.932/2020, Partition Suit

No.51/2020, Criminal Misc. Application Case No.1481/2019, C Case No.333/2021.

Cases filed by Kulbir Singh Kalra as under:-

Mutation Revision No.5/2021, Partition Suit (O.S.) No.137/2018, Probate Case No.1/2019, C Case No.493/2019.

It is evident that family relation is tensed and all has grievances against each other. Peaceful co-existence is not possible.

The mother has shown her desire to be in custody of her younger son namely, Jasmeet Singh Kalra and she has shown lack of faith in her elder son namely, Kulbeer Singh Kalra and grand son, namely, Gautam Singh Kalra. She has further shown desire to reside in the disputed house as she has happy memory of her husband in that house.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the other side has not opposed the right of the mother to reside in the said house and also ready to pay some more compensation as per the requirement of her mother.

During dictation of order, the mother has further requested that her elder son should vacate the house and prayed for exclusive possession.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has solemn intention to give protection to a female from domestic violence and also to provide resources for her descent life or as per the standard of life she used to.

From pleading of the parties and the documents available on records, it appears that the root cause for the dispute is property. The mother has grievance against her elder son. Jurisdiction of this Court in the present litigation is limited. This Court is only supposed to look into the requirements of the mother for happy and peaceful life and further the provision should be made for fulfillment of genuine needs. The mother is an old lady and she requires continuous medical support. She also needs personal care from her family members.

Considering the requirements of the mother and the mandate of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and further considering the recent judicial trend, this Court directs the son Kulbeer Singh Kalra to deposit Rs.50,000/- per month in the account maintained in the name of his mother. The provision should be made for ATM etc. so that, she can withdraw the money as per her convenience. The amount should be deposited within first week of the every month. This order is effecting from November, 2021.

As per the statement of the parties, the house consists of two bedrooms with provision in ground floor and the same is in the first floor. Thus, the house consists of four bedrooms.

Accordingly, one bedroom in ground floor should be dedicated to the mother with necessary provision. She has right to reside there peacefully. Further, by using separator, provision for stay of caring nurse should be made within two weeks from today.

Further, monthly maintenance amount is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per year (Fifty Thousand) with stipulation of yearly enhancement of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand). The first enhancement shall be made from December, 2022.

Protection Officer is directed to supervise and report to the concerned court on monthly basis securing that the order of this Court is complied with.

With above observations and directions, both the revisions stand disposed of.

Personal appearance of the parties is, hereby, dispensed with.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

Shahid/