I got another ;
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: September 05, 2008
Date of Order : September 30, 2008
CM(M) 105/2006
30.09.2008
Neetu Mittal ...Petitioner
Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrasekhar, Adv.
Versus
Kanta Mittal and Ors. ...Respondents
Through: Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv. for R.1 and 2
Mr. Devendra Singh, Adv. for R.3
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not ? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest ? Yes.
JUDGMENT:
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 4th January, 2006
passed by the learned Additional Senior Judge allowing an appeal of the
respondent against order dated 24.5.2005 of Civil Judge dismissing an
application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
2. The respondents had filed a suit making petitioner, their son
and in-laws of the son as defendants wherein they prayed for permanent
injunction. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was made that the
petitioner and other respondents be restrained from forcibly and illegally
entering into their house No. B-2/23, Phase-II, Ashok Vihar and from interfering
with their peaceful living. The petitioner is wife of Sh. Vikas Mittal son of
respondents, Smt. Kanta Mittal and Sh. Ram Kishan Mittal.
3. The learned Senior Civil Judge while allowing appeal observed
that wife has a right to live in the matrimonial home after marriage but there
was no specific definition of matrimonial home. However, matrimonial home was
not just a building made of bricks and walls. It was a home/place comprising of
sweetness of relations of family members and elders, full of blessing. In the
matrimonial home, matrimonial rights and obligations are to be equally observed.
Practically speaking, the residence of husband should be the home of the wife
where both the spouses have equal right to reside.
4. The learned Senior Civil Jude found that in this case, the
respondents were parents of Sh. Vikas Mittal and in-laws of Neetu Mittal
(petitioner). They had separated from their son. The son had taken a flat in
Rohini for his own residence and residence of his wife. The son and his wife
had agreed to shift there on 10th May, 2005 under a compromise arrived at Police
Station. However, the wife did not stay in the flat at Rohini. Her grievance
was that flat was not habitable due to deficiency of fan, cooler, etc.
Thereafter, she asserted that she had a right to live in her in-laws' house in
Ashok Vihar and she wanted to forcibly live there which compelled respondents
no. 1 and 2 to file the suit. The learned Senior Civil Judge found that the
respondents were aged parents. They had shown by filing medical record that
they were suffering from various ailments and at this age of their life they
have a right to live peacefully at their home. Since the relations of
petitioner were not cordial with them, there was every likelihood of breach of
peace to the detriment to their mental and physical health. Due regards have to
be given to their rights. It was a admitted fact that the respondents and
petitioner could not live together under one roof with peace and harmony. The
common use of dining and one kitchen would create further problems and a
situation may come when parties may everyday land up at Police station or in the
Court, fighting on minor issues.
5. Learned Sr. Civil Judge also observed that the
respondents(parents) even apprehend danger to their lives and dignity, as per
the complaint made by them to the Police. Under these circumstances, the
learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
CPC and restrained the defendants (petitioner herein) from forcibly entering
into their house and disturbing the peaceful possession of the respondents.
6. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner being wife
of son of respondents no. 1 and 2 has a right to live in the matrimonial home
and no injunction could legally have been issued by the learned Civil Judge.
She referred to Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and argued
that the right of women to live in the shared household was to be protected by
every Court and the house of in-laws was a shared household and a matrimonial
home and she had a right to live there.
7. In S.R. Batra vs. Taruna Batra AIR 2007 SC 1118, Supreme Court
observed as under:
?16. There is no such law in India, like the British Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967
and in any case, the rights which may be available under any law can only be as
against the husband and not against the father-in-law or mother-in-law.
17. Here, the house in question belongs to the mother-in-law of Smt. Taruna
Batra and it does not belong to her husband Amit Batra. Hence, Smt. Taruna
Batra cannot claim any right to live in the said house.
27. Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batra has relied upon Section
19(1)(f) of the Act and claimed that she should be given an alternative
accommodation. In our opinion, the claim for alternative accommodation can only
be made against the husband and not against the husband's in-laws or other
relatives.
28. As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the wife is only
entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a 'shared
household' would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the
husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is
a member. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit
Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which
the husband Amit Batra is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant
no.2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a 'shared household'.?
8. As observed by the Supreme Court, 'Matrimonial home' is not
defined in any of the statutory provisions. However, phrase ?Matrimonial home?
refers to the place which is dwelling house used by the parties, i.e., husband
and wife or a place which was being used by husband and wife as the family
residence. Matrimonial home is not necessarily the house of the parents of the
husband. In fact the parents of the husband may allow him to live with them so
long as their relations with the son (husband) are cordial and full of love and
affection. But if the relations of the son or daughter-in-law with the parents
of husband turn sour and are not cordial, the parents can turn them out of
their house. The son can live in the house of parents as a matter of right only
if the house is an ancestral house in which the son has a share and he can
enforce the partition. Where the house is self-acquired house of the parents,
son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in that house and
he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents upto the time the
parents allow. Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house
so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that the
parents have to bear his burden throughout the life.
9. Once a person gains majority, he becomes independent and parents
have no liability to maintain him. It is different thing that out of love and
affection, the parents may continue to support him even when he becomes
financially independent or continue to help him even after his marriage. This
help and support of parents to the son is available only out of their love and
affection and out of mutual trust and understanding. There is no legal
liability on the parents to continue to support a dis-obedient son or a son
which becomes liability on them or a son who dis-respects or dis-regards them or
becomes a source of nuisance for them or trouble for them. The parents can
always forsake such a son and daughter-in-law and tell them to leave their house
and lead their own life and let them live in peace. It is because of love,
affection, mutual trust, respect and support that members of a joint family gain
from each other that the parents keep supporting their sons and families of
sons. In turn, the parents get equal support, love, affection and care. Where
this mutual relationship of love, care, trust and support goes, the parents
cannot be forced to keep a son or daughter in law with them nor there is any
statutory provision which compels parents to suffer because of the acts of
residence and his son or daughter in law. A woman has her rights of maintenance
against her husband or sons/daughters. She can assert her rights, if any,
against the property of her husband, but she cannot thrust herself against the
parents of her husband, nor can claim a right to live in the house of parents of
her husband, against their consult and wishes.
10. I therefore consider that the order passed by the learned
Senior Civil Jude granting injunction does not suffer from any illegality and
the petition is hereby dismissed.
