Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 4821/4832 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) read with Article 227 of the Constitution filed to set aside the orders dated 20-08-2020 passed by Sessions Judge and 21-12-2019 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Neena Bansal Krishna, J., stated that it was evident that no absolute right of residence could be claimed by the wife. The Court observed that the Metropolitan Magistrate while maintaining a balance between the rights of the wife, husband and his family, also being cognizant that the property was owned by the father-in-law who cannot be made to suffer in his heydays, had directed that alternate Flat in the same colony on rent might be made available to the wife.
Therefore, the concern of the legislature that the woman be not thrown out of the house and be left on the road, was also addressed by directing the husband to provide suitable alternate accommodation in the same locality. Thus, the Court stated that there was no infirmity in the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, which was rightly upheld by the District and Sessions Judge and dismissed the present petition.
Background
Petitioner-wife got married to Respondent 2-husband on 12-07-2017 and resided in Delhi. Soon after the marriage, difference arose between the parties and Respondent 3 to 5 who were the parents-in-law and sister-in-law shifted out of this accommodation to another self-owned property in the same locality. Thereafter, on 19-07-2017, the husband also left the shared household and sent the message that he was not coming. All the efforts for reconciliation did not succeed. The wife being aggrieved by the alleged cruel and barbaric acts of parents-in-law and sister-in-law, filed a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’).
During the pendency of proceedings, an application was filed by the wife to seek protection of her residence in shared household, which was allowed vide order dated 21-12-2017 and the respondents were restrained from dispossessing the wife from the shared household. On 05-03-2018, the husband was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month.
Subsequently, the parents-in-law instituted a suit against the wife and her parents for directing her to vacate the suit premises to defeat her right of residence in shared household. Simultaneously, the father-in-law filed an application for vacation of order dated 21-12-2017 and vide impugned order dated 21-12-2019, the Metropolitan Magistrate not only recalled this order granting interim protection from dispossession to the wife, but also withdrew the order granting interim maintenance of Rs.5,000. Aggrieved by this, an appeal was filed before the District and Sessions Judge, who considered all the contentions raised by the wife and dismissed the appeal on 20-08-2020.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the only dispute which remained was about the shared household, in which the permissive possession was protected but subsequently vacated vide order dated 21-12-2019 and upheld vide Order dated 20-08-2020. The Court observed that undeniably, the wife came to reside in this house along with all the family members after her marriage and thus, it was her shared household. Even though admittedly the property was owned by the father-in-law, that still did not take away the status of the suit property from being the shared household.
The Court noted that while Section 19 of the DV Act recognized the right of a daughter-in-law to continue to live in the shared household, it was subject to two conditions; firstly, she could not be dispossessed except in accordance with law and secondly, she might be provided with an alternate accommodation or the rent for such alternate accommodation. Thus, the Court stated that it was evident that no absolute right of residence could be claimed by the wife.
The Court stated that the wife herself was an educated woman who did her MBA and was employed. It was not a case where she was helpless or there was any endeavour to leave her on the road by taking away the roof from her head. The Metropolitan Magistrate while maintaining a balance between the rights of the wife and the husband and his family, also being cognizant of the fact that the property was owned by the father-in-law who cannot be made to suffer in his heydays, had directed that alternate Flat in the same colony on rent might be made available to the wife and the compliance report had been sought.
Thus, the Court stated that since Section 19 of the DV Act itself provided that due process of law might be followed to seek eviction, the argument that wife was subject to harassment as father-in-law had filed a civil suit was not tenable. The concern of the legislature that the woman be not thrown out of the house and be left on the road, was also addressed by directing the husband to provide suitable alternate accommodation on rent in the same locality. Thus, the Court stated that there was no infirmity in the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, which was rightly upheld by the District and Sessions Judge and dismissed the present petition.
[A v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7307, decided on 21-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Neeraj Gupta and Prateek Goswami, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Hemant Mehla, APP for the State; Anuj Jain and Jai Gaba, Advocates.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 528 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’)
