High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against Order dated 5th December, 2013 ASJ whereby learned ASJ was pleased to confirm the residence Orders dated 1st November, 2013, in favour of Respondent No.1.
Brief Facts:
Marriage between the Respondent and the son of the Petitioners was solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals and Petitioner No. 1 (since deceased) and Petitioner No. 2 are the mother-in-law and father-in-law, respectively, of the Respondent. The relationship between the Respondent and her in-laws was cordial in the beginning, however, it started to deteriorate with time. The Respondent left her matrimonial home on 16th September, 2011. Consequently, more than 50 cases, both civil and criminal, were filed by the parties against each other. One of these cases were initiated by the Respondent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and during the proceedings the Respondent claimed right to residence in a property. The DV Act matter was heard by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, wherein it was observed that the husband of the Petitioner is the 50 percent owner of the co-owned house, the Respondent was residing on the first floor of the said matrimonial home till the day she was dispossessed from the house and that there was a prima facie case that the husband of the Respondent was having an illicit affair. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that, the Respondent herein was entitled to the right of residence in the first floor of the abovementioned property. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Court did not appreciate the fact that on one hand the Respondent levied allegations of sexual assault against the Petitioner, who is a senior citizen, and on the other hand she filed for right to live in the premises where he had been residing. The Petitioners were in the exclusive possession of the premises where their son, husband of the Respondent, was not even a resident.
Furthermore, it was submitted that the Respondent made frivolous and baseless allegations of adultery against the son of the Petitioner and had failed to establish the same before the learned Appellate Court and the finding of the learned Trial Court regarding prima facie existence of an illicit relationship of the son of the Petitioner with one Mona Thakur, was also, rightly set aside by the Appellate Court. It was submitted that it was the Respondent who was in an extramarital relation with other persons and was caught red handed by her husband.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no error in the observation of the learned Appellate Court in upholding the Order of the learned Trial Court. It was submitted that the premises in question, is the matrimonial home of the Respondent and she has been rightfully entitled to residence in the said property by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The right to residence of the Respondent arises out of the 50 per cent ownership of her husband in the said premises.
It was submitted that the husband of the Respondent was having an affair with another woman from his office and when the Respondent came to know about this and objected to the relationship, she was thrown out of the said matrimonial house where she had been living for more than 20 years. The Petitioners not only threw out the Respondent from her matrimonial house but there also subsisted a real threat that the Petitioners would restrain her to enter in the house in future as well, owing to which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed the Order granting the right to live at the matrimonial home at the said premises.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court observed that the Respondent approached the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under the DV Act wherein she also filed an interim application seeking the relief of right of residence. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, although did not adjudicate upon the allegations under the DV Act, it satisfied itself on the question of the right of the Respondent to live at her matrimonial home.
HC found that for the purposes of granting the interim relief of right to residence the statements as well as documents annexed were found sufficient to substantiate the grant the relief in favour of the Respondent. HC stated that the Appellate Court although did not appreciate the argument of adultery against the husband of the Respondent, however, the same could not have had an overbearing on the ground appreciated by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the preliminary stage while granting the interim relief.
HC stated that the SC provides the necessary protection to a wife to live at the house entitling her to claim a right to residence in a shared household, which would mean a 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.
HC stated that the observation of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was in consonance with the findings of the SC as well as the fact that the Respondent had an emotional attachment to the house given that she had lived there for over 20 years of her married life and even the Appellate Court was right in upholding the same while passing the impugned Order. The right of residence under the DV Act is exclusive to and isolated from any right that may arise under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and thereby, the learned Appellate Court’s observation in this regard has also been correctly made.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “the Appellate Court rightly appreciated that the Respondent has a right to live at her husband’s co-owned property, that there was a real apprehension that the Petitioners would have removed the Respondent from the house and that the fact of likelihood of filing of cases against the Petitioners could not have affected the Respondent’s right to live at her matrimonial house and, therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the Order dated 5th December, 2013 passed by ASJ.”
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Case Title: OM Prakash Gupta & Anr v. Anjani Gupta & Anr
Case Details: CRL.M.A. 10828/2021 & CRL.M.A. 15072/2021
Picture Source :
