Final Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: RCA DJ 22/24
Aarti Pal Vs. Jagparvesh
20.01.2025
Present: Appellant with Ld. counsel.
Respondent with Ld. counsel.
Arguments heard.
This is an appeal filed against judgment dated 12.09.2023
passed by the Ld. Civil Judge thereby directing a mandatory injunction to
provocation of suit property by the daughter in law in favour of the plaintiff.
In the suit son of the plaintiff was also made a party but he apparently did
not oppose the suit. The Ld. Civil Judge found that the plaintiff was owner
of the suit property. The Ld. Civil Judge also accepted that the suit property
was shared household and there was domestic relationship but she found
that the daughter in law was unable to prove the domestic violence and
therefore she could not claim right of residence in the shared household. Ld.
Civil Judge also opined that right of residence is not an indefeasible right.
She opined that there is nothing to indicate that there was any acrimonious
relationship between husband and wife, on the other hand, there is acrimony
with the in-laws. The Ld. Civil Judge therefore came to a conclusion that the
daughter in law should vacate the property.
The daughter in law has challenged the judgment of Ld. Civil
Judge. I am of the opinion that the Ld. Civil Judge has not approached the
case from all perspective. The husband i.e. defendant no.1 though appeared
but never filed WS to oppose the suit. This indicates that he was inclined to
support his father instead of his wife. This is sufficient to infer on a
probability that husband was not in favour of the wife. Despite this, the Ld.
Civil Judge assumed that there was no acrimonious relationship between
husband and wife. Ld. Civil Judge also opined that there was no domestic
violence. I think the attempt by the father in law to remove the daughter in
law which could result in the deprivation of shelter, itself would be a
domestic violence. Ld. Civil Judge was inclined to direct removal of
daughter in law from the shared household, she ought to have passed a
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
direction for alternate accommodation with the help of Section 26 read with
Section 19 of Domestic Violence Act. The Ld. Civil Judge did not do so.
Ld. Civil Judge further opined that the daughter in law was not
able to prove anything but then the Ld. Civil Judge herself did not properly
proceeded in the case. No one was appearing on behalf of daughter in law
but instead of proceeding in exparte manner, the Ld. Civil Judge closed the
right of DE and heard final arguments of the plaintiff and passed the
judgment. This was not proper at all. In the available circumstances, I am of
the view that defendant no.2 i.e. the daughter in law should be granted an
opportunity to lead proper evidence. Therefore, the matter needs to be
remanded back to the Ld. Civil Judge for further trial. Daughter in law has
filed certain photographs in this appeal showing brutality against her. She
shall also be allowed to lead evidence in respect of such brutality.
In view of the aforesaid, the judgment and decree dated
12.09.2023 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge in suit no. 1268/18 are set aside.
The Ld. Civil Judge shall take up the civil suit for further evidence and
consideration and decide the matter afresh.
Parties shall appear before the Ld. Civil Judge on 01.02.2025 at
2:00 pm. A copy of this order alongwith TCR be returned back to the trial
court.
Appeal is disposed of.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Rakesh Kumar Singh)
DJ-02/(N-W), Rohini Courts
Delhi/20.01.2025
-- 2 of 2 --