Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF DR. SAVITRI, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02(NE), KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI.
CA No. 113/23
1. Naghma
W/o. Mohd. Saalim Qureshi @ Shabbu
D/o. Shamshul Hasan
R/o. House No. P-26, Gali No.17,
Braham Puri, Seelampur,
Delhi -110053
...Appellant
Versus
Gulista
First Wife of Mohd. Saalim Qureshi
@ Shabbu
R/o. T- T-366 & 378, Amanat House,
Chamelian Road, Ahata Kedara,
Qasabpura, Bara Hindurao,
Delhi-110006
...Respondent
Date of assignment : 05.12.2023
Date of Arguments : 29.04.2024
Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2024
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present judgment, I shall dispose of
appeal filed under section 29 of DV Act. The appeal is directed
CA No. 113/23 Naghma Vs. Gulista 1 page of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
against the order dated 14.10.2023 passed by Ld. Trial Court
(Mahila Court).
2. I have heard the arguments advanced by both sides
and I have also been through the Trial Court record of the present
case.
3. The appellant is the second wife of Mohd. Saalim
Qureshi @ Shabbu whereas the respondent is the first wife of
the same person. By way of the impugned order, the Ld. Trial
Court had discharged the respondent in D.V Act proceedings on
the ground that the respondent was not in domestic relationship
with the appellant/victim and therefore the petition could not be
maintained qua her.
4. It is nowhere mentioned in the Trial Court record that the
respondent first wife was residing in the same house as a joint
family member with the second wife. It is specifically mentioned
in para 11 of the petition that the marriage had taken place on
30.10.2021 and when she went to the matrimonial house, no one
was present except her sister-in-law (jethani). It is also mentioned
in para 12 of the petition that in the second week of
November,2021, the respondent suddenly came to the
matrimonial house of the victim and claimed herself to be the
first wife of her husband, abused and quarreled with her. She also
beat her but no one came to rescue her.
5. Considering that two women have not lived in
shared household with each other, the Ld. Trial Court had rightly
discharged her. I do not find any ground to interfere with the
CA No. 113/23 Naghma Vs. Gulista 2 page of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
same. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby
dismissed.
6. TCR be sent back along-with copy of this judgment.
7. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court ( Dr.SAVITRI)
today on 29.04.2024 Additional Sessions Judge-02
(NE): Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Note : Ordersheet cannot be signed digitally as digital
signature has expired.
CA No. 113/23 Naghma Vs. Gulista 3 page of 3
-- 3 of 3 --