Satish Chander Ahuja
Vs.
Sneha Ahuja

Facts

  1. The appellant by deed, purchased a property in New Delhi, the son of appellant got married to the respondent in 1995. After the marriage, respondent started living on the first floor along with her husband. There being a marital discord between the parties in July 2014, Raveen the son of the appellant moved out of the 1st floor and started staying in the guest room on the ground floor.
  2. Raveen filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of Hindu marriage Act 1955, for the decree on the ground of cruelty against Sneha. Sneha filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act against her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law and alleged emotional and mental abuse by the respondents.
  3. The court in which complaint had been filed by Sneha passed an interim order on November, 2016 stating that without the order of a competent court, the respondents shall not alienate the subject property or the alleged share household and not to dispose of the complainant and children from the same.
  4. The appellant thereby filed a suit impleading the respondent as a sole defendant for mandatory and permanent injunction and also for the recovery of damages or mesne profit. He stated that, he is a senior citizen aged 76 years and the defendant is in occupation of the first floor. He further stated that he is a heart patient and he has undergone angioplasty twice and has suffered from hypertension and high blood pressure.
  5. The appellant pleaded that, Sneha had filed false and frivolous cases against the plaintiff and his wife and hence prayed for removal of Sneha from the suit property to spend a peaceful life. Satish further pleaded that he acquired the house from the previous owner in January, 1983 and the same was converted into free hold vide Convention Deed executed in his favor in July, 2003 and is registered.
  6. Appellant further stated that, Sneha threatened them and even became violent some times. Satish and his wife have become the victim of domestic violence and the defendant is not entitled to claim residence against the plaintiff who has no obligation to maintain her during the life time of her husband.
  7. The appellant in his suit prayed for the decree of mandatory injunction against Sneha and to remove herself and her belongings from the 1st floor and restrain her, her agent and her representatives from the property, in any manner creating interference or obstruction of the right of the plaintiff and restrain her from causing interference in the ground floor.
  8. The respondent in her written statement pleaded that house property was acquired through joint family funds and was not a self acquired property. In this, the appellant has submitted that the property in question is a self acquired property and the same is registered.

Held
Trail court
The defendant is directed to hand over physical possession of the suit property within 15 days and granted the decree of permanent and mandatory injunction in favor of the appellant.

High court
The High Court set aside the decree of trail court and remanded the matter to trial court for fresh adjudication. The court held that the trail court before passing a decree on possession of the wife on premises or ownership right must ensure that she must be provided with alternative accommodation as per the provisions of Domestic Violence Act.

Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the relief of right of residence of married women under the Domestic Violence Act by a criminal court is valid and relevant and can be considered in civil proceedings seeking for eviction form matrimonial home. The interim order passed in relation to protecting the right of married women will not come in the way of filing a civil suit relating to property. The Supreme Court is of the opinion that the High Court has rightly set aside the decree of trail court and remanded for fresh adjudication.