Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J) Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Swetashwa Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
By means of the present Appeal, the appellant is challenging the order dated 19th February, 2014, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddh Nagar by which he has allowed the application for interim relief of the respondent no.1, who filed Original Suit No. 1201 of 2012, seeking permanent injunction, restraining the defendant no.2, present appellant, from interfering in peaceful living of respondent no.1 in House No. B-72, Sector 50, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar and not to create any hindrance in peaceful living of the respondent no.1 alongwith his wife in the said house.
The brief facts, giving rise to the present Appeal, are that the respondent no.1 is a retired Officer, who is aged about 70 years. He purchased a plot in Sector 50, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar, from NOIDA authority. The lease deed of the said plot has been executed on 29th May, 2003. After getting the map sanctioned for construction of the residential house, the house has been got constructed over the said plot. The said house has been numbered as House No. B-72, Sector 50, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar in which he is residing alongwith his wife. The said house is in the name of respondent no.1.
It is the case of the respondent no.1 that he constructed the house after taking the loan from his provident fund and from the Bank as well as from his own savings. In the purchase of the plot from the NOIDA authority and construction of the house, no money has been taken from his son or from his wife and in this way, he is the exclusive owner of the said house. His son, Manish Gupta, respondent no.2 herein, who is serving in the Railways, was married with the appellant on 25th June, 2007. Out of their wedlock, they have been blessed with a son, who born on 5th November, 2008. Both the appellant and the respondent no.2 are highly qualified and are well settled and both of them are in employment.
It is the contention of the respondent no.1 that initially he was having a very good relationship with the appellant and he treated her as a daughter and extended all the love and affection to her, like his daughter, but gradually, bitterness started between the appellant and the respondent no.2 as well as with the respondent no.1 and his wife. The appellant started misbehaving and ill-treating with them and using abusive language and made their peaceful life hell. On account of misbehaviour of the appellant, the respondent no.2 started living separately in House No. B-92, Sector 50, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Thereafter, the appellant also left the house of the respondent no.1 and started living in House No. A-65, Sector 48, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar and is presently living in the said house. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 has filed a Suit being Original Suit No. 1201 of 2012, seeking permanent injunction against the appellant, restraining her from entering into House No. B-72, Sector 50, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar and further to restrain her from interfering with the peaceful living of the respondent no.1 alongwith his wife in his own house. The said Suit was filed alongwith an application under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking interim injunction, which has been marked as 6-Ga-2.
The said Suit has been filed on the ground that the misbehaviour of the appellant with the respondent no.1 and his wife was highly objectionable and cruel and after consultation with his wife, with a heavy heart, they restrained the appellant to enter in his house. The appellant, thereafter, has given threatening to them that she will reside forcefully in House No.72, Sector 50, Gautam Buddh Nagar and in case if the appellant succeeds in her attempt, they will suffer irreparable loss.
Initially, the Trial court has granted an ex parte interim injunction on 12th September, 2009 and thereafter, impugned order has been passed, granting interim injunction after hearing both the parties.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the present Appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a collusive suit has been filed by the respondent no.1 with the collusion of the respondent no.2 to deprive of the appellant to live in the matrimonial house No. B-72, Sector 50, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar. It is submitted that the appellant has filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act against the respondent no.2, Manish Gupta, her husband, and against other family members as well in the court of Judicial Magistrate at Gautam Buddh Nagar on 28th September, 2012, which is pending. House No. B-72, Sector 50, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar, is a shared household, as defined under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and under Section 17 of the said Act, the appellant has a right to live in the said house. Learned counsel submitted that Manish Gupta is still living in the said house and, thus, the appellant has a right to live with her husband. The impugned order restraining the appellant to reside in house No. B-72, Sector 50, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar, is wholly illegal and unjustified.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Manish Gupta is in employment with the Railways. At the time of the marriage with the appellant, he was posted at Chennai and lateron transferred to New Delhi. The appellant was also working at Chennai. His job is transferable. He is not living with his parent in house No. B-72, Sector 50, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar and is living at B-92, Sector 50 NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar. The notice of the appeal has also been served upon Manish Gupta at the address 'B-92, Sector-50, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar', which is evident from Annexure CA-6. The appellant is residing in House No. A-65, Sector 48, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar. The respondent no.2 is living separately from his parents and it is wrong to say that he is residing at house No. B-72, Sector 50, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar. It is submitted that in the Appeal itself, the address of Manish Gupta has been shown as 'resident of B-92 Sector 50, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar'. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that house No. B-72, Sector 50, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar is the self-acquired property of the respondent no.1 and he is the exclusive owner of the said house in which Manish Gupta has no share or any kind of right. This fact is not in dispute. He submitted that the said house which belongs to the respondent no.1, father-in-law of the appellant, does not fall within the meaning of shared house as defined under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and as such the appellant has no right to claim that she is entitled to live in the said house. She can only claim her right over a property of her husband, whether it is owned by him or taken on rent by him. To butress his submission, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.R. Batra and another v. Taruna Batra (Smt.), reported in (2007) 3 SCC 169 and a decision of Delhi High Court, in the case of Neetu Mittal v. Kanta Mittal and others, reported in AIR 2009 Delhi 72. He submitted that Manish Gupta has filed a Divorce Suit No. 1104 of 2013, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddh Nagar, which is pending.
Lastly, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 is that in view of the submissions made above, the appellant has no right to live in house No. B-72, Sector 50, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar and to interfere in the peaceful living of the respondent no.1, alongwith his wife. The Trial court, on consideration of entire facts and circumstances and the materials available on record, has granted the interim injunction. He submitted that initially an ex parte interim injunction has been granted on 12th September, 2012 and thereafter upon hearing both the parties, the impugned order has been passed.
We have considered rival submissions and gone through the record.
It is a very unfortunate case where strained relationship has developed between the father-in-law and mother-in-law with their daughter-in-law during a very short span of time. The marriage of the son of the respondent no.1 was solemnised in 2007. It appears that since both the appellant and her husband were working at Chennai, they were residing at Chennai. In 2009, the respondent no.2 was transferred from Chennai to New Delhi. He might have sought transfer from Chennai to New Delhi with the object to live with his parents, but in a very short period of time, it turned out to be a very bitter experience as strained relationship developed between the appellant and the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2.. The appellant, who is the daughter-in-law of the respondent no.1 and wife of respondent no.2, has left the house in question and started living separately in a rented House No. A-65, Sector 48, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar. In Paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that in the objection, filed against 6-C Application, in paragraph-28, the appellant herself has stated that she had resided in House No. B-19, Sector 41, NOIDA Gautam Buddh Nagar and is presently residing in House No. B-67, Sector 41, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar. It appears that lateron she shifted in a rented house No. A-65, Sector 48, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar and at present is residing there. The respondent no.2 has also left the house of his parents and is residing at House No. B-92, Sector 50, NOIDA Gautam Buddh Nagar, where the notice of the Appeal has been served.
There is no dispute that House House No. B-72, Sector 50, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar is the self-acquired property of the respondent no.1 and he is the exclusive owner of the said house in which his son, Manish Gupta, respondent no.2 herein, has no right. It is very unfortunate that a very small family, consisting of few members has been completely destructed and the members of the family are residing separately as a result of strained relation with each other and litigating against each other. Respondent no.1, who is father-in-law of the appellant, has to file the suit with the allegations that the appellant has misbehaved and abused respondent no.1 and his wife and threatened them of dire consequences. Being afraid of the threat and misbehaviour of the appellant, the respondent no.1 filed Suit No. 1201 of 2012, seeking permanent injunction alongwith the application for interim relief on which an interim injunction has been granted on 12th September, 2012 and thereafter upon hearing both the parties, the impugned order has been passed.
A child is brought up by his parents with utmost care, love and affection from the day the child puts his first appearance in the world till he becomes independent and intend to continue the same till their death. They marry their son with great enthusiasm and welcome their daughter-in-law in their house and intend to live with them happily and treat the daughter-in-law as a family member hence-forth with the very little expectation. Even if the parents themselves are hungry, but firstly they prefer to arrange food for their children as they cannot see their children hungry. Likewise, at the old age, the parents also have some legitimate expectations from their son/daughter-in-law that their son and daughter-in-law take care of them, they will look after them properly. It is the boundened and pious obligation and duty of every son/daughter-in-law, which is not to be told, to take care of parents at their old age. If after marriage of their son, the parents are harassed and discarded by their son and daughter-in-law, it will give them intolerable pain and sufferings, which normally they cannot tell to some-one outside the family, at the cost of their reputation in the society. The pain, which the parents suffer at their old age by the act and behaviour of their son/daughter-in-law is a suffering which cannot be explained and only in a very compelling circumstances when all the barriers are being broken and situation becomes intolerable and unbearable only then the parents take such steps to protect themselves.
It is true that the daughter-in-law also expects love, affection and good behaviour from her father-in-law and mother-in-law as well as from her husband. When she comes to her matrimonial house after the marriage, she has to adjust with all the new persons there and with her husband. She also has got some legitimate expectation from her in-laws from the side of her husband.
Tolerance, adjustment and forgiveness is the basic foundation of an integrated and united family. If there is no tolerance and forgiveness, the family cannot co-exist. It appears that now-a-days, the level of tolerance and forgiveness has substantially reduced, may be, because of many reasons which we are not discussing in the present case. It appears that every-one in the society is in a hurry to achieve and get every thing in a very shorter time. This attitude, some times, results in friction and conflict between the members of the family. Respect to each other, moral values and concept of discipline are being substantially decreasing. Prima facie reason of this erosion appears to be defective education system and improper preaching by the parents.
In the present case, the respondent no.2 is the son of the respondent no.1, working with the Railways and his daughter- in- law also is in a respectable job, both of them are highly educated and highly qualified, but instead of extending the feeling of joy, being daughter-in-law and take utmost care of her in-laws, the parents are being harassed and are being compelled to be engaged into litigation with their daughter-in-law to live peacefully, that too, in their own house, which they acquired out of their hard earned money and by making small savings out of their salary and cutting out their necessary expenses.
Every person has a right to live in his self-acquired house, peacefully alone or with his/her family as per his/her choice. 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.
Learned counsel for the appellant is not able to show any provision under which the daughter-in-law has got any legal right to claim to live in the self-acquired properly of the father-in-law or mother-in-law. She has been provided some protection under the provision of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the daughter-in-law can only claim her right to live in a house belonging to her husband or a rented house of her husband or in a joint family house in which her husband has a share. Meaning thereby, she can only claim her right against the right of her husband.
In the case of S.R. Batra and another v. Taruna Batra (Smt.)(supra), the daughter-in-law, Taruna Batra claimed her right to live in the house of mother in law on the ground that she had lived in the said house in past and it is a shared house-hold. The Apex Court, while dealing with the right of daughter-in-law, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, has held as follows:
24-Learned Counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batra stated that the definition of shared household includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship. He contended that since admittedly the respondent had lived in the property in question in the past, hence the said property is her shared household 25- We cannot agree with this submission 26- If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband's father, husband's paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respondent is accepted, all these houses of the husband's relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist in living in all these houses of her husband's relatives merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past. Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd.
27-It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted.
28- 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.
29- 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'.
In the case of Neetu Mittal v. Kanta Mittal and others (supra), Delhi High Court has held as follows:
"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."
In view of the principal laid down by the Apex Court and Delhi High Court, we are of the view that the appellant has no right to claim to live in House No. B-72, Sector 50, NOIDA, Gautam Buddh Nagar and to interfere in peaceful living of respondent no.1, in his own self-acquired house, alongwith his wife. The respondent no.1 is an old age retired person and has every right to live peacefully in remaining part of his life.
In view of, what has been discussed above, in the result, the Appeal, being devoid of merits, fails and is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to cost.
Order Date :-
1st September, 2014 bgs/