Kavita Kumari vs State & Anr on 11 January, 2016

1. Instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner –

Kavita Kumari to challenge the legality of a judgment dated 19.04.2014 of

learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.A.26/2013 whereby order dated

15.12.2011 passed by Mahila Court, Central District, Delhi, dismissing

application for interim relief under Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act (in short DV Act) was upheld. Petition is contested by

respondent No.2.

Crl.R.P.304/2014 Page 1 of 6
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the file. Petition under Section 29 of DV Act has been filed by

the petitioner against the respondent No.2 and is pending before the Trial

Court. By an order dated 15.12.2011, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate

dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for reinstatement in

house bearing No.T-514 B near Budh Bazar, Hill Road, Baljeet Nagar,

New Delhi. The appeal against the said order resulted in dismissal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned orders cannot

be sustained as the petitioner, legally wedded wife of the respondent No.2

after her marriage on 16.04.1994 had lived at T-514 B near Budh Bazar,

Hill Road, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi, and had shared the said

accommodation. In the month of August, 1998, they started living in a

rented accommodation at T-443, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi. She was

forced to leave the said accommodation also on account of cruel treatment

of respondent No.2. She lodged a complaint case under Sections 323/34

IPC against the respondent No.2 and his brother and it resulted in their

conviction. A case vide FIR No.379/1998 under Sections 498A/406/34

IPC was also registered against the respondent No.2 and his brother. The

respondent No.2 had filed a divorce petition on 20.09.2002 which was

decreed vide judgment dated 02.05.2009. However, in appeal, the said
Crl.R.P.304/2014 Page 2 of 6
judgement and decree was set aside by this Court vide judgment dated

08.04.2011. Counsel urged that House No.T-514 B near Budh Bazar, Hill

Road, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi, is the petitioner’s shared household as

defined under DV Act and is exclusively owned by the respondent No.2.

The rented accommodation at T-443, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi, was with

an oblique motive to desert her forever. It was further contended that the

Trial Court had specifically directed the respondent No.2 to produce the

title deeds of the said house vide order dated 09.03.2010. He, however,

did not comply the said order and filed an affidavit on 17.04.2010 stating

that the said house was not his property and was owned by his father.

Respondent No.2 has concealed the material relevant facts before the Trial

Court regarding the ownership of the said property. She is entitled for

residence in her shared household No.T-514 B near Budh Bazar, Hill

Road, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*