Allowed¶33

Kuljeet Kaur v. Gurdev Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2025CR/2016/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab and Haryana High Court; CR-2016-2024 (O&M); Kuljeet Kaur vs. Gurdev Singh; Order I Rule 10 CPC; impleadment of defendant; necessary party vs proper party; husband sought to be added in father-in-law's possession suit; shared household; right of alternate accommodation; Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 745 followed; Sudhamayee Pattnaik vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo Civil Appeal No. 6370 of 2022 distinguished; plaintiff master of the suit; revision petition allowed; Anil Kshetarpal J.; decided 06.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; impugned trial Court order set aside; the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the petitioner's husband as defendant stands allowed; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶33

Kuljeet Kaur Vs Gurdev Singh — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

CR-2016-2024 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR-2016-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.05.2025

¶5

Smt. Kuljeet Kaur

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Gurdev Singh ...Respondent

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Gagandeep Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

¶13

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner herein is a defendant in a suit filed by her father-in-

¶15

law-Sh. Gurdev Singh, seeking decree of possession of a house.

¶16

The petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to implead her husband-Sh. Satwinder Singh as defendant, which has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that he is not a necessary party.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper-book.

¶18

Learned counsel representing the petitioner while relying upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in para 119 of 'Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja', 2020(4) RCR (Criminal) 745 submits that the

¶19

petitioner's husband may not be a necessary party but he is nevertheless a

¶20

NEERAJ 2025.05.07 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CR-2016-2024 (O&M) -2-

¶22

proper party.

¶23

Per contra , learned counsel representing the respondent while relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in 'Sudhamayee Pattnaik and others vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and others', Civil Appeal No. 6370 of 2022 decided on 16.09.2022 submits that the plaintiff is the master of the suit.

¶24

The observations made by the Supreme Court in para 119 reads as

¶25

under:-

¶26

"119. There can be no dispute with the preposition of law as laid down by this Court in the above two cases. In the present case, although plaintiff has not claimed any relief against his son, Raveen Ahuja, the husband of the respondent, hence, he was not a necessary party but in view of the fact that respondent has pleaded her right of residence in shared household relying on Sections 17 and 19 of the Act, 2005 and one of the rights which can be granted under Section 19 is right of alternate accommodation, the husband is a proper party. The right of maintenance as per the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is that of the husband, hence he may be a proper party in cases when the Court is to consider the claim of respondent under Sections 17 and 19 read with Section 26 of the Act, 2005."

¶27

It is evident that petitioner claims that she is in possession of the property being shared accommodation. As per the provision of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, she can be granted right of alternate accommodation.

¶28

Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the application filed the petitioner shall stand allowed. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel

¶29

NEERAJ 2025.05.07 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CR-2016-2024 (O&M)

¶31

-3-

¶32

representing the respondent would not be applicable, particularly, in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja's case (supra).

¶33

The revision petition is allowed.

¶34

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

¶35

disposed of.

¶36

(ANIL KSHETARPAL) 06.05.2025 JUDGE neeraj Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

¶37

NEERAJ 2025.05.07 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kuljeet Kaur v. Gurdev Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuljeet Kaur v. Gurdev Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Dlf Ltd. Vs Megha Seth

Gurcharan Singh Vs Naranjan Singh.

M/S Sky Rock City Welfare Society Vs Jaswant Singh

Cecillia Kamini Kanu and Another Vs Mahfuz-Ur-Rahman and Others

Haryana State Vs Prem Parkash

Karam Singh Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Nigam Ltd. Kaithal