Disposed

Smt Kiran Gandhi v. Smt Kanta Rani & Anr.

Delhi HC21 Nov 2024C.R.P./345/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenges the District Judge's dismissal of an application for Judgment on Admissions and the impleadment of the husband in a suit for ejectment. The High Court held that eviction cannot be granted immediately as the house is a shared household under the Domestic Violence Act, directed the husband to ensure alternate accommodation, and dismissed the petition without interfe

What did the court decide?

The Revision Petition and pending applications were dismissed without interference in the District Judge's order, directing the respondent-husband to provide alternate accommodation if sought.

Smt Kiran Gandhi Vs Smt Kanta Rani & Anr. — Domestic Violence | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- C.R.P. 345/2024 & CM APPLs. 67672/2024, 67673/2024

¶4

SMT KIRAN GANDHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Ms. Gurmeet Kaur Kapoor, Ms. Manisha Bagga, Ms. Tanupreet Kaur & Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

SMT KANTA RANI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Parminder Singh Goindi, Advocate for R-2 with R-2 through VC.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA O R D E R

¶9

% 21.11.2024

¶10

The present Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC, 1908” ) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner-Plaintiff against the Order dated 26.09.2024 vide which the Application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, 1908 filed by the Petitioner-Plaintiff has been dismissed and Shri Suraj Singh Negi, the husband of Respondent-Defendant No. 1, has been impleaded as Defendant No. 2 in the array of parties by the Court under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, 1908 .

¶11

Learned counsel for the Revisionist-Plaintiff submits that the Respondent-Defendant No. 1, who is the wife of Respondent-Defendant No. 2, is residing at B-299, Upper Ground Floor, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and the said house belongs to the Revisionist-Plaintiff, who is the sister of Respondent-Defendant No. 2/Shri Suraj Singh Negi and sister-inlaw of Respondent (Defendant No. 1).

¶12

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/11/2024 at 14:22:45

¶14

It is further submitted that the Revisionist-Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Ejectment, Possession, Mesne Profit and Permanent Injunction in respect of Property bearing No. B-299, Upper Ground Floor, Mohan Garden, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property” ) , wherein an Application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, 1908 was filed on behalf of the Revisionist-Plaintiff seeking Judgment on Admissions.

¶15

The learned District Judge after referring to various judgments, has declined to exercise his discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, 1908 to decree the Suit on Admissions. However, taking suo moto cognizance under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, 1908, and that the responsibility of providing the accommodation to the wife, is of the husband, Shri Suraj Singh Negi/husband has been impleaded as a Respondent No. 2 in the Suit.

¶16

The Respondent-Defendant No. 2 is present through video conferencing along with his Counsel.

¶17

Submissions heard.

¶18

The Petitioner-Plaintiff had sought eviction of Respondent-Defendant No. 1, the sister-in-law/wife of the Respondent-Defendant No.2/Suraj Singh Negi, from the suit property on the ground that she was the owner of the suit property. However, since the suit property was the shared household of Respondent-Defendant No. 1, the learned District Judge has rightly declined to exercise discretion of giving a Judgment on Admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, 1908 .

¶19

However, it cannot be overlooked that though it is a shared household but is owned by the sister-in-law. The primary responsibility to provide for residence to the wife is that of the husband, who has now been impleaded as Defendant No. 2 in the Suit by the learned District Judge. Reference may be

¶20

¶21

¶22

made to Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is relevant which reads as under: -

¶23

“ Section 19 Residence orders

¶24

(1) While disposing of an application under subsection (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order

¶25

(a) restraining the respondent 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;

¶26

(b) ........ (c) ........ (d) ........ (e) ........ or

¶27

(f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require:

¶28

Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman.

¶29

(2) The Magistrate may impose any additional conditions or pass any other direction which he may deem reasonably necessary to protect or to provide for the safety of the aggrieved person or any child of such aggrieved person.

¶30

(3)…….

¶31

(6) While making an order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may impose on the respondent obligations relating to the discharge of rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties.

¶32

(7)… (8)….”

¶33

The entire objective of Section 19 of the Protection of Women from

¶34

¶35

¶36

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is to give protection to a daughter-in-law who shall not be left without a roof over her head.

¶37

From the reading of Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is evident that while it recognizes the right of a daughter-in-law to continue to live in the shared household , is subject to two conditions; firstly she cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law and secondly, she may be provided with an alternate accommodation or the rent for such alternate accommodation.

¶38

Learned counsel for the Respondent-Defendant No. 2 submits that Respondent-Defendant No. 2 undertakes to provide appropriate alternate accommodation to the Respondent-Defendant No. 1, his wife. In the alternative, he is willing if she comes to stay in his house.

¶39

In view of the submissions made, no further interference is merited and warranted with the observation that the Petitioner-Plaintiff or the Respondent-Defendant No. 2 may move an appropriate Application for providing the alternate accommodation/rent to Respondent-Defendant No. 1 for her residence.

¶40

The said Application, when moved, shall be considered by the learned District Judge in the light of the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 independent of the observations made in the impugned Order dated 26.09.2024.

¶41

Accordingly, the present Revision Petition along with pending Applications is hereby disposed of.

¶42

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶43

NOVEMBER 21, 2024 S.Sharma

¶44

¶45

Smt Kiran Gandhi v. Smt Kanta Rani & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kiran Gandhi v. Smt Kanta Rani & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Re-in the Matter of M/S Electronic Trade & Technology Dev. Corpn. Ltd. Vs .....

Praveen Kumar Arya & Anr. Vs Ved Prakash Arya & Anr.

Vineet Taneja Vs Ritu Taneja

India Trade Promotion Organisation Vs Elets Technomedia Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Sunita Devi & Anr. Vs Mobin & Ors.

Sukhdev Yadav @ Pehalwan Vs State (Nct of Delhi)