Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARVIND BANSAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE – 05 (SHAHDARA DISTRICT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 103/2023
Police Station: Welcome
In the matter of:
Neena Verma @ Priya
w/o Shri Dharam Prakash Verma
r/o A-2-B, Main 33 Foota Road,
Ambika Vihar, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi – 110094.
……….Appellant
Vs.
1. Dharam Prakash Verma (Husband)
s/o Shri Sewa Ram Verma
2. Sumitra Verma (Mother-in-Law)
w/o Shri Sewa Ram Verma
3. Sewa Ram Verma (Father-in-Law)
4. Jai Prakash Verma (Brother-in-Law)
5. Gautam Verma (Brother-in-Law)
6. Nisha Verma (Sister-in-Law)
All r/o H. No. 7, Mandi Kohana,
Sarafa Bazar, Muzaffar Nagar, UP.
……….Respondents
Date of Institution : 08.07.2023
Reserved on : 16.08.2023
Announced on : 16.08.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, the Court shall dispose of instant
Appeal filed by appellant/wife against impugned ex-parte
CA No. 103/2023
Neena Verma @ Priya vs. Dharam Prakash Verma & Ors.
Page 1 of 7
-- 1 of 7 --
judgment dated 08.02.2023 passed by Ld. MM (Mahila Court-
01), Shahdara thereby deciding an application u/s 12 of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short, D.V.
Act) thereby deciding the aspect of relief u/s 18,19,20 & 22 of
D.V. Act.
2. Succinctly stated, it is the case of appellant/wife that
she got married to respondent no. 1/husband on 17.02.2014 as
per Hindu rights and ceremonies. It is alleged that she was
subjected to domestic violence by all the respondents on several
occasions. It is stated that appellant/wife has been residing with
her brother since 26.06.2014 and respondent no. 1 refused to
provide any maintenance to her. She preferred an application u/s
12 of D.V. Act against her husband and the other in-laws.
Ld. Trial Court issued summons to all the
respondents and on due service, they all appeared and after
completion of pleadings, matter was fixed for complainant
evidence, however, respondents stopped appearing before the
Court. Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 20.04.2022 proceeded
ex-parte against all the respondents.
3. Vide impugned judgment dated 08.02.2023, Ld.
Trial Court ordered:
(I) respondents to restrain themselves from
communicating with complainant with any
manner through any mode;
(ii) declined the relief of restraining the
respondents from dispossessing her from the
shared household and entering the portion of
shared household where she resided;
CA No. 103/2023
Neena Verma @ Priya vs. Dharam Prakash Verma & Ors.
Page 2 of 7
-- 2 of 7 --
(iii) ordered payment of Rs. 8,000/- per month
towards maintenance from the date of filing of
the petition i.e. 14.12.2015 till such time,
complainant is entitled to receive the same; &
(iv) ordered a lumpsum compensation of Rs.
30,000/- in favour of appellant and jointly and
severely against all the respondents.
4. Submissions heard. Record perused.
5. It is argued by Ld. LAC that Ld. Trial Court did not
consider the plight of appellant/wife while passing the aforesaid
order. It is stated that appellant/wife has been residing with her
brothers who have the responsibility of their own families and
have already asked her to find out an alternative accommodation
for herself. It is argued that appellant/wife is entitled for
residence at her matrimonial house and therefore, the order of
Ld. Trial Court declining grant of residence right is illegal and
improper. It is further argued that the compensation amount of
Rs. 30,000/- awarded vide the impugned order is too meagre for
the nature of mental and physical cruelty extended by
respondent/husband against appellant/wife. It is stated that
appellant/wife has no source of any income and respondent no.
1/husband has not even complied with maintenance order of Rs.
20,000/- per month awarded against him u/s 125 Cr.P.C by Ld.
Family Court. It is stated that in case, appellant is not granted
relief to reside at her matrimonial house, she will be left
homeless creating condition of starvation for her. On the basis of
aforesaid submissions, Ld. LAC for appellant/wife seeks setting
CA No. 103/2023
Neena Verma @ Priya vs. Dharam Prakash Verma & Ors.
Page 3 of 7
-- 3 of 7 --
aside of ex-parte order.
6. This Court has gone through the impugned ex-parte
judgment dated 08.02.2023. The Court shall deal with all the
reliefs sought by appellant/wife vide present appeal u/s 29 of the
Act.
6.1 Appellant/wife has sought right to reside in the
matrimonial home at H. No. 7, Mandi Kohana, Sarafa Bazar,
Muzaffar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh or in alternative has made a
prayer to buy her another house of similar nature and status for
her to reside in Delhi.
Ld. Trial Court has duly dealt with such a request of
appellant/wife in para 11 & 13 of the impugned order. Firstly, the
relief of purchasing a similar house/accommodation in Delhi,
was never sought before Ld. Trial Court. Secondly,
appellant/wife has not explained the financial capacity of
respondent no. 1/husband to purchase such a property in Delhi.
Thirdly, it is nowhere mentioned in the application u/s 12 D.V.
Act or the present appeal that the matrimonial home is also
owned by respondent no. 1/husband and as such, he cannot be
burdened with a liability of purchasing a new house for the
appellant/wife.
6.1.1 As regards the request of appellant/wife to provide her right
to reside in matrimonial home, it would be apposite to quote the
following observations of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case
titled ‘Shumita Didi Sandhu vs. Sanjay Singh Sandhu’
(26.10.2010):
“49. we must emphasise once again that
right of residence which a wife undoubtly
has, does not mean the right to reside in a
particular property. It may, of course, mean
CA No. 103/2023
Neena Verma @ Priya vs. Dharam Prakash Verma & Ors.
Page 4 of 7
-- 4 of 7 --
the right to reside in a commensurate
property. But it can certainly not translate
into a right to reside in a particular
property.”
Ld. Trial Court has specifically clarified in its order
that the amount of maintenance shall include the amount
required for making arrangement of alternative accommodation.
Ld. Trial Court has rightly considered the right of appellant/wife
to have an alternative accommodation. Further, there are specific
allegations against all the in-laws for extending cruelty upon
appellant/wife in the matrimonial/shared household. This Court
cannot permit the domestic violence against appellant/wife to
perpetuate by allowing her to stay in the said property. The
request/relief, thus, sought, cannot be granted. Ld. Trial Court
has rightly decided the issue of alternative accommodation by
granting the amount therefor in the amount of maintenance.
6.2 Appellant/wife has also sought directions against
respondents not to alienate the shared household i.e. H. No. 7,
Mandi Kohana, Sarafa Bazar, Muzaffar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. A
bare perusal of the impugned order would provide that the said
aspect was duly considered and decided by the Ld. Trial Court.
It is observed that the details of ownership of the
matrimonial home have not been furnished by appellant/wife
either before Ld. Trial Court or this Court. In the absence of such
details, no such order can possibly be made thereby restraining
the respondents from alienating their assets. The appellant/wife
has also not explained as to what right did she acquire in the
matrimonial home through her marriage with respondent no. 1.
As such, no order of the nature sought by appellant/wife can be
CA No. 103/2023
Neena Verma @ Priya vs. Dharam Prakash Verma & Ors.
Page 5 of 7
-- 5 of 7 --
made.
6.3 Relief under Clause 3 of the prayer clause sought by
appellant/wife is subject to grant of relief under clause 1. It is
observed that this Court has already declined the relief sought by
appellant/wife under clause 1 of the prayer clause vide its
observations in para no. 6.1 of this order. No further order is
required in respect of relief no. 3 in the prayer clause.
6.4 Appellant/wife has also sought a compensation
amount of Rs. 5 lacs for the mental and physical atrocities
caused by all the respondents. It is noted that appellant/wife has
not furnished any ground or factor for quantification of such an
amount. Ld. Trial Court in its wisdom has already awarded a
compensation amount of Rs. 30,000/- to appellant/wife payable
by all the respondents jointly and severally. There is no reason to
alter or amend the said order of grant of compensation of Rs.
30,000/- in favour of appellant/wife.
7. In the opinion of this Court, Ld. Trial Court has duly
considered all the aspects of the case and has accorded sufficient
reasons for deciding all the aspects of the case including the
amount of final maintenance. Further, appellant/wife has yet not
preferred any execution petition pursuant to the impugned
ex-parte judgment dated 08.02.2023. She may resort to exercise
of such a right available to her.
8. The impugned judgment appears to have been
passed after considering status of the parties and their respective
liabilities in life. The judgment is well-reasoned and there is no
justified ground to set aside the impugned judgment 08.02.2023
CA No. 103/2023
Neena Verma @ Priya vs. Dharam Prakash Verma & Ors.
Page 6 of 7
-- 6 of 7 --
of Ld. Trial Court which is based on correct understanding of the
law and the facts and circumstances of the case. Present appeal
is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. File of present Appeal be consigned to Record Room
after due compliance. Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial
Court for information and record.
Dictated & announced in the open Court
on 16.08.2023.
(ARVIND BANSAL)
Additional Sessions Judge-05 (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CA No. 103/2023
Neena Verma @ Priya vs. Dharam Prakash Verma & Ors.
Page 7 of 7
-- 7 of 7 --