Delhi High Court: The Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. ordered mother-in-law of the petitioner to provide her an alternate accommodation and compensation under provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Petitioner and her husband lived together in the property which is subject matter in this case. In 2012, the husband left the matrimonial house and the respondent (mother-in-law) directed the petitioner to leave the house. She is alleged to have filed a suit for permanent injunction after which the litigation story began. After several litigations, the Metropolitan Magistrate passed a residence order in favour of the petitioner. It was alleged that the order was not complied with and moreover the mother-in-law sold the subject property to a third party while the matter was still pending adjudication before the court.
Rajeev Ranjan Pandey, Advocate submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent was liable to be prosecuted for breach of court orders.
The High Court referred to Sections 12, 19, 20 and 31 of the DV Act. It was noted that the subject property was sold for Rs 3,40,00,000. It was also noted that there was no order restraining the mother-in-law from selling the property and as such she could not be penalised under Section 31 which prescribe punishment for breach of court orders. In such a situation, the Court balanced the corresponding rights of the parties by directing the mother-in-law to provide an alternate accommodation in a property similar in nature in the same locality. Interim compensation of Rs 75,000 was also directed to be paid while pendency of proceedings Section 20 before the trial court. Furthermore, 1/6th of the sale consideration received was directed to be deposited with the trial court. The petition was disposed of in such terms. [Shachi Mahajan v. Santosh Mahajan, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6418, dated 10-01-2019]
hi Devika,
Any sort or offense should be levy heavy penalty. People should fear the law. The court should set for a fix and number of hearing for any case in question and does not drag the matter of years.
Absolutely right. The courts are supposed to be intolerant towards contempt of court. Courts are not supposed to balance the parties as it is done in this Judgement.
This is a abuse of law. The Courts can not balance the rights of parties. The have to punish one at fault. Shifting daughter in law to rented home and directing the mother in law to pay the rent is out of the relief of the DV Act. The judgement is unsound and should not set a precedent that sell the property in between the litifations are pending. And get away with a directing which are not practical and unenforceable.