Sat. May 8th, 2021

Kusum Lata vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 19 April, 2021

2 min read

2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the present petition, are that

petitioner is the mother-in-law of respondent no.2 and owner of the property

situated at RZ-38-39/184, Gali No.2, Durga Park, New Delhi-110045 which

consists of two floors where petitioner is residing with her husband.

3. On 29.10.2009, son of the petitioner got married to respondent no.2

and since then, they were residing peacefully at the first floor of the said

property. Since 2018, respondent no.2 started causing problems for

petitioner and her husband and used to fight with them asking them to

transfer the rights of all their movable, immovable properties and business

of husband of petitioner to the husband of respondent no.2 and herself. On

17.06.2018, the petitioner and her husband disentitled their son from all their

properties by publishing it in the newspaper of ‘Indian Express’ and

‘Jansatta’. Thereafter on 18.06.2018, husband of the petitioner made a

complaint against respondent nos.2 to 8 alleging that they forcibly entered

into the house of the petitioner and threatened them of dire consequences,

subsequently subjected them to abuse, manhandle, defamation, mental

Crl.M.C.1880/2020 Page 2 of 17
torture, harassment, etc. however, no action was taken by police. Thereafter,

on 27.06.2018, just to avoid any more dispute between petitioner and

respondent no.2, petitioner’s son took a rented accommodation and decided

to shift along with respondent no.2 and their children, however, respondent

no.2 refused to leave the said property and again called respondent nos.3 to

8 who threatened the petitioner and her husband. On 28.06.2018,

respondent no.2 called the police and made a complaint and after receiving

the complaint, police called the petitioner, her husband, husband of

respondent no.2 and respondent nos.3 & 4 to Police Station, Sagarpur. The

police did not take any action and asked respondent nos.3 & 4 to take

respondent no.2 to their home and thus respondent no.2 went to her parent’s

home with her relatives and vacated the said property. The son of the

petitioner had already shifted to the rented accommodation and vacated the

portion of the said property which was in their possession and petitioner had

the possession of the whole property.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply