IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA,
SPECIAL JUDGE CBI02 (P.C. ACT), DISTT. NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS,
DELHI.
Crl. (A) No. 46/16
New Crl. A No. 49817/16
Ms. Anjana Rani
W/o Shri Amit Jnidal
R/o B426, Avantika,Sector1, Rohini,Delhi. … Appellant
Versus
1. Mr. Amit Jindal
S/o Shri Raja Ram Gupta
2. Raja Ram Gupta
S/o Shri Babu Ram Gupta
3. Maya Gupta
W/o Shri Raja Ram Gupta
All R/o F46, G.T.B. Enclave,
MIG Flat, Dilshad Garden,New Delhi. … Respondents
Date of Institution : 18.07.2016
Date or arguments : 02.11.2016
Date of judgment : 24.11.2016 Judgment
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 8.4.16 passed by the trial cour in CC No. 267/4/13 PS Vijay Vihar whereby the respondent No. 2 and 3 has been discharged and the interim maintenance has been declined to the appellant.
2. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the appellant and Ld. counsel for the respondents and perused the file.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial court has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures which is against the facts and law. The trial court has erred in holding that there is no domestic relationship between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 who is the father-in-law of the appellant and respondent No. 3 who is the motherinlaw of the appellant because the appellan used to visit her matrimonial house very regularly and the respondent No. 2 and 3 had not stopped from committing domestic violence upon the appellant. The appellant was in domestic relationship with the responden No. 2 and 3 when she earlier filed an application U/s 12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Ac (hereinafter be referred as D.V. Act) in the year 2009. The respondents in a preplanned manner caused the appellant to withdraw this application in order to avoid their liabilities under D.V. Act. The respondent No. 1 who is the husband has neglected to maintain the appellant despite being capable of earning. The impugned order refusing the interim maintenance to the appellant is without any valid reasons. The trial court has passed the impugned order without appreciating the allegations of the appellant. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has argued that Ld. trial cour has passed the impugned order after considering the material on record. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
4. It has been observed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Vijay Verma Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2010 (4) JCC 2377) as follows: “Domestic relationship is defined under the Act in Section 2 (f) as under:
(f) ‘domestic relationship’ means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.”
A perusal of this provision makes it clear that domestic relationship arises in respect of an aggrieved person if the aggrieved person had lived together with the respondent in a shared household. This living together can be either soon before filing of petition or ‘at any point of time’. The problem arises with the meaning of phrase “at any point of time”. Does that mean that living together at any stage in the past would give right to a person to become aggrieved person to claim domestic relationship? I consider that “at any point of time” under the Act only means where an aggrieved person has been continuously living in the shared household as a matter of right but for some person the aggrieved person has to leave the house temporarily and when she returns, she is not allowed to enjoy her right to live in the property. However, “at any point of time” cannot be defined as “at any point of time in the past” whether the right to live survives or not……..
Domestic relationship continues so long as the parties live under the same roof and enjoy living together in a shared household. Only a compelled or temporarily going out by aggrieved person shall fall in phrase ‘at any point of time’ say, wife has gone to her parents house or to a relative or some other female member has gone to live with her some relative, and, all her articles and belongings remain within the same household and she has not left the household permanently, the domestic relationship continues. However, where the living together has been given up and a separate household is established and belongings are removed, domestic relationship comes to an end and a relationship of being relatives of each other survives.”
5. Perusal of the file shows that the appellant has filed the application U/s 12 of D.V. Act against the respondents. It is admitted fact tha the appellant has married with the respondent No. 1 on 25.4.2008.
In the affidavit as to the assets and income, the appellant has shown her education qualification as Post Graduate and working as TGT and her basic pay as Rs. 14,710/. However, in the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1, he has shown his educational qualification as Diploma in Hardware and Networking and presently unemployed.
Keeping in view the fact that as the appellant is working as TGT and she is able to maintain herself, so she is not entitled to interim maintenance from the respondent No. 1.
6. From the material on record, it is clear that the appellant has left the matrimonial house in the year 2009 and has been living separately from the respondents No. 2 and 3. In the appeal, the appellant has made the allegations that she used to visit the respondent No. 2 and 3 very regularly on every weekend and every holiday.
These allegations shows that the appellant is residing separately and has only temporarily visiting the residence of the respondent No. 2 and 3. There is nothing to show that the appellant has ever resided in the household or residence of the respondents No. 2 and 3 continuously and as a matter of right and has lived in the shared household with the respondents No. 2 and 3.
Keeping in view the above said judgment, I am of the opinion that there is no domestic relationship between the appellant and the respondents No. 2 and 3.
7. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 8.4.16 passed by the trial court in CC No. 267/4/13 PS Vijay Vihar and it is upheld. The appeal is dismissed without being having any merits.
Trial court record be sent back to the concerned trial court along with the attested copy of this judgment. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court
(Rajneesh Kumar Gupta)
today i.e. on 24.11.16
Special Judge CBI02 (PC Act)
(North West) , Rohini Courts, Delhi.
