Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J. while addressing the matter, expressed that
“…in the opinion of this Court, all cases of family disputes cannot be characterised as cases under the DV Act.”
Plaintiff had filed a suit against his son and daughter-in-law, respectively.
In view of various disputes between the plaintiff and his son/daughter-in-law, he sought the permanent and mandatory injunction, damages seeking vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property and removal of his son and daughter-in-law. Damages and mesne profits were also sought by the plaintiff.
- Condonation of delay of 342 days, in filing the present second appeal.
- Merits of matter.
Analysis, Law and Decision
High Court stated that there was no delay in filing the present appeal.
Several disputes arose amongst the said family members, which, according to Plaintiff, were due to the interference of the family members of the daughter-in-law, including the mother and the brothers of the daughter-in-law.
There was no document on record to show the existence of a HUF, of which, Plaintiff was alleged to be the Karta.
Plea of ‘shared household’ appeared to have clearly been put up on behalf of the daughter-in-law, as a faint plea, and as an argument of last resort.
There were no complaints that had been preferred against the father-in-law and there were no cases filed or pending under the DV Act, or any other legislation at the instance of the daughter-in-law.
Further, the Bench stated that the father was merely seeking to evict both his son and daughter-in-law, on the strength of his ownership of the suit property.
Adding to the above, Court stated that the settled position of law is that proceedings under the DV Act are not required and the same can also be raised as defence in the suit, the basic requirements of the said Act ought to be satisfied.
The present is not a case where the case set up is one under the DV Act, involving domestic violence.
High Court highlighted the peculiar facts:
- The ownership of the Plaintiff in the suit property is not in dispute.
- The sale of the property of the mother, which took place in 2011, was never challenged by the Defendants.
- The purchase of this suit property in the name of the Plaintiff was never challenged by the Defendants.
- There is no complaint of Domestic Violence raised by the daughter-in-law before any forum. In fact, to the contrary, the Plaintiff has filed complaints against his son and daughter-in-law with police repeatedly, alleging ill-treatment and abuse.
- The Defendants i.e., the son and daughter-in-law are living together peacefully. The written statement before the trial court was filed jointly. The first appeal was also filed jointly, and so is the present second appeal. There is no estrangement or marital discord between them.
- The order passed in the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC has also been executed and the Defendants have already moved out of the suit property and are living in alternate premises.
In light of the above stated facts and noting that they are distinguishable from the facts of Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, [2020 (11) SCALE 476] and Vanitha v. Deputy Commr., [2020 (14) SCALE 210]
Court dismissed the appeal. [Aarti Sharma v. Ganga Saran, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4110, decided on 24-08-2021]
Advocates before the Court:
For the Appellants: Zahid Ali, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Advocate