The Appellate Court rightly appreciated that the Respondent has a right to live at her husband’s co-owned property and same was upheld by High Court Of Delhi through the learned bench led by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH in the case of OM PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR. vs ANJANI GUPTA & ANR. (CRL.M.C. 5188/2013) on 8th March, 2022.
Brief facts of the case are that Marriage between the Respondent and the son of the Petitioners, Mr. Alok Gupta, was solemnized on 30th January, 1990 according to Hindu rites and rituals and Petitioner No. 1 (since deceased) and Petitioner No. 2 are the mother-in-law and father-in-law, respectively, of the Respondent. The relationship between the Respondent and her in-laws was cordial in the beginning, however, it started to deteriorate with time. The Respondent left her matrimonial home on 16th September, 2011. And more than 50 cases both civil and criminal, were filed by the parties against each other, one of these cases were initiated by the Respondent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the learned Appellate Court while passing the Order dated 5th December, 2013 failed to address various issues raised by the Petitioner before it. It is submitted that the Appellate Court wrongly upheld the Order of the learned Trial Court dated 1st November, 2013.
It is submitted that the Respondent left her matrimonial home, on her own accord and did not return thereafter. However, she filed for the right to residence with respect to the property bearing no. A-41, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi-110092, during the DV Act proceedings. The said premises were in the name of the wife (since deceased) and son of the Petitioner and the Respondent has no reason to claim the right in the said property. It is submitted that husband of the Respondent attempted to join her several times and after continuous refusal by the Respondent he filed for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Respondent contested the petition and sought its dismissal, which was a testament to her reluctance to live with her husband
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1, vehemently opposed the instant petition and submitted that there is no error in the observation of the learned Appellate Court, husband of the Respondent was having an affair with another woman from his office and when the Respondent came to know about this and objected to the relationship, she was thrown out of the said matrimonial house where she had been living for more than 20 years.
The Court observed that it does not find any error in the Order dated 1st November, 2013, whereby the right of residence was granted in favour of the Respondent, as well as in the Order dated 5th December, 2013 upholding the Order dated 1st November, 2013. Accordingly, the instant petition against Order dated 5th December, 2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-02/Special Judge (NDPS), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No. 104/13 is dismissed.
Judgment reviewed by – Amit Singh