THE COURT OF MS NEHA PALIWAL,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01, MAHILA COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT, DELHI.
CC No. 90/6/13
U/s 12 of The Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act
PS Pahar Ganj
Case No. 516799/16
Smt. Asha
W/o Sh. Rakesh,
D/o Sh. Laxman Dass,
R/o H.No. AB-464, Amar Puri,
Pahar Ganj, Delhi.
……..Complainant.
v.
1. Sh. Rakesh, (husband, since
S/o Sh. Ram Chander, dead, matter stood
abated against him
vide order dated
13.08.2013)
2. Sh. Ram Chander, (father-in-law)
S/o Sh. Ganesh,
3. Smt. Kamla, (mother-in-law)
W/o Sh. Ram Chander,
4. Sh. Prakash (brother-in-law)
S/o Sh. Ram Chander
5. Smt. Vinita (sister-in-law)
W/o Sh. Prakash
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 1 of24
6. Jagdish (cousin brother-in-
S/o Sh. Prabhu Dayal, law)
(Respondent nos. 5 and 6 were not given notice of the present
case vide order dated 18.05.2013)
All respondents are residents of
H. No. A-78, Baba Farid Puri,
West Patel Nagar, Delhi.
…..Respondents.
Date of Institution of case : 18.05.2013
Date of reserving the judgment : 05.09.2018
Date of decision of case : 22.09.2018
JUDGMENT
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) seeking
relief of protection order under Section 18, residence order
under Section 19, monetary relief under Section 20 and
compensation order under Section 22 of the Act.
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant as per the
complaint is that she got married with respondent no.1 (since
dead) on 30.11.2008 and two children were born out of the
said wedlock, who are in her care and custody. After
marriage, she was subjected to cruelty, both mental and
physical, by all the respondents. At the time of marriage, it
was informed to her parents that her husband owns a gents
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 2 of24
saloon at Dwarka. However, after some months of marriage,
she came to know that the said shop was tenanted. The
respondents demanded a sum of Rs. 5 Lacs from her for the
purpose of purchase of shop for respondent no. 1. She was
mercilessly beaten on her refusal to accede to the said
demand. On 14.09.2009 again a demand of Rs. 5 Lacs was
made and she was again mercilessly beaten and was thrown
out of the matrimonial house by the respondents. She, at that
time, was five months pregnant. After the birth of her first
child on intervention of the relatives, she joined her
matrimonial home again on 02.02.2010. However, she was
again harassed for demand of motorcycle and was
mercilessly beaten on her refusal to accede to the said
demand. She was again thrown out of the matrimonial house
on 15.12.2010 and at that time, she was four months
pregnant. Again with the intervention of the relatives, she
joined her matrimonial house on 12.05.2011. However, still
the conduct of the respondents persisted and she was
beaten for demand of Rs. 5 Lacs. She was again thrown out
of the matrimonial house on 05.01.2012 after severe
beatings. Thereafter, on the request of her family members,
the respondents took her back in the matrimonial house on
17.08.2012. However, she was again harassed for petty
matters. On 22.01.2013 again she was beaten with a view to
coerce her to fulfill the demand of Rs. 5 Lacs by all the
respondents. She was wrongfully confined in a room and in
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 3 of24
the evening was again beaten and thereafter, thrown out
from the matrimonial house alongwith her three minor
children. She was medically examined. She, since then, is
residing with her parents. She made a complaint to police on
18.02.2013, however, no action was taken on her complaint.
3. It is further her case that her husband ran a shop of
building material at Nilothi, Delhi in partnership and earned
Rs. 50,000/- per month from the same. He was having good
bank balance, mobile and was leading a luxurious life. Per
contra, she is unemployed and dependent upon her old age
parents. She has no source of income and is unable to
maintain her and the minor children.
4. It is further her case that she is living under constant
fear and threat of the respondents and it would be harmful
and injurious for her to live with the respondents. There is
danger to her life at the hands of the respondents.
5. Thus, she has prayed that the respondents be
prohibited from committing acts of domestic violence against
her, they be prohibited from communicating with her, be
prohibited from alienating her istridhan and shared house-
hold bearing no. A-78, Baba Farid Puri, Patel Nagar and be
further prohibiting from renouncing their rights in that
household or from encumbering the same or disposing it of,
they be prohibited from committing physical violence against
her. She has further prayed that the respondents be directed
to provide separated rented accommodation to her, they be
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 4 of24
further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to her for her
maintenance as well as maintenance of the minor children.
The respondents be also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs
to her towards compensation and damages for mental,
physical cruelty and emotional stress.
6. On the complaint of the complainant Domestic Incident
Report (DIR) was called from the Protection Officer. After
perusal of the DIR notice was directed to be given to
respondents no. 1 to 4 vide order dated 18.05.2013. Notice
was not given to respondents no. 5 and 6 of the present
petition, by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
7. On 13.08.2013, it was admitted by both the parties
before the Court that respondent no. 1 had expired and
therefore, proceedings against him were abated vide order of
the same date.
8. Reply was filed by respondents no. 2 to 4 to the
complaint of the complainant. They admitted the factum of
marriage between complainant and respondent no.1 and that
two children were born out of the said wedlock, whose
custody is with the complainant. They further admitted their
relationship with the complainant and that they have lived
together for some time with the complainant in the same
shared house-hold. Thus, they had admitted the existence of
domestic relationship between the parties.
9. However, respondent nos. 2 to 4 specifically denied
each and every allegation of the complainant by way of their
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 5 of24
reply. It is their case that no demand of dowry was raised by
them. They had never misbehaved, tortured or taunted the
complainant for dowry demands. They had never committed
any physical or mental cruelty upon the complainant. After
marriage, the complainant resided with respondent no. 1 on
first floor of the house alongwith respondent nos. 4 and 5
and respondent no. 2 and 3 resided at the ground floor. The
complainant, however, misbehaved with the respondents and
harassed them. She deserted the matrimonial home without
any reason, time and again. She even pressurized
respondent no. 1 to pressurize respondent no. 2 and 3 to
transfer the entire first floor in her name. Respondent no. 1
was not the sole son of his parents and therefore, the
demand of the complainant could not be fulfilled.
Complainant wanted to oust respondent no. 4 and 5 from the
house, so that the first floor can be transferred in her name.
On refusal to transfer the property, she threatened and
harassed her husband and threatened that she would
implicate them in false case. The parents and relatives of
complainant exercised undue interference in her matrimonial
life. The birth of the first child took place at the parental
house of the complainant due to the customs of her family.
No motorcycle or money was demanded by them from the
complainant. The complainant staged a false incident of
22.01.2013 and called the police. On 23.01.2013, a meeting
was organized between the family members of both the
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 6 of24
sides, wherein it was decided that both complainant and
respondent no. 1 will reside separately from other
respondents. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith her
husband and children alongwith all of their goods shifted to
H.No. 2086/1, 2nd Floor, Gali No. 19, Prem Nagar, Delhi. She,
since then, was residing with the respondent no. 1 in that
house. Thereafter, even respondent no. 4 and 5 also shifted
from the shared house hold. Respondent no. 2 and 3
severed all their relations with the complainant, respondent
no. 1 and their children vide public notice in newspaper
dated 30.01.2013 and 31.01.2013. On 17.02.2013 again a
false PCR call was made by the complainant. In the police
station, compromise was arrived at and both complainant
and respondent no. 1 mentioned their address as the
tenanted address of Prem Nagar. Complaints were given by
respondent no. 1 to police on 18.02.2013 and 20.02.2013 as
the family members of the complainant abused, threatened
and assaulted him.
10. It is further their case respondent no. 1 was found
dead in unnatural and mysterious circumstances on
13.07.2013 at Railway Line, near flyover, platform No.1
Palam Railway Station. The other respondents have
suspicion that the complainant and her family members may
have a hand in the untimely death of respondent no.1 and for
which respondent no.3 had already given a complaint which
is still under inquiry.
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 7 of24
11. It is further the case of the respondents that after the
death of respondent no.1, the complainant came to the
house of respondents and threatened them to transfer the
house or portion of house in her name or to face
consequences. It was told to her that a deal to sell the house
had already been made. A written complaint was given to the
police station with respect to the same.
12. It is further their case that the complainant had shifted
to the tenanted premises at H.No. 2086/1, Second Floor, Gali
No. 19, Prem Nagar, Delhi alongwith all her goods and
stridhan articles and had resided there with respondent no.1.
Respondent no.2 had already disposed off house bearing no.
A-78, Baba Farid Puri, West Patel Nagar. He had filed a civil
suit for permanent injunction against the complainant before
disposing of the property and after that suit was dismissed
on 29.07.2013, respondent no.2 had sold the property as he
had already entered into agreement to sell. Thus, they had
prayed that the application of the complainant be dismissed.
13. Replication (rejoinder) was filed by the complainant to
the reply of respondents no.2 to 4. The complainant
specifically denied each and every allegation of the
respondents and reiterated her stand as was taken in her
complaint. It is her case that she came to know after the
death of respondent no.1, that respondent no.2 in collusion
with one Smt. Gulab Devi as an eye-wash, had shown
fictitious transaction with respect to the shared house-hold
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 8 of24
on 31.07.2013.
14. As respondent no.1 had died and the proceedings
against him stood abated, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court
vide order dated 20.10.2014 fixed the matter at the stage of
complainant’s evidence without passing any order on interim
application.
15. The complainant at the stage of her evidence
examined herself as CW-1. She tendered her evidence by
way of affidavit, Ex.CW1/A. Complainant’s evidence was
closed vide order dated 13.07.2015 and thereafter, the
matter was fixed for respondents evidence.
16. The respondents no.2,3 and 4 examined themselves
as RW-3, RW-2 and RW-1 respectively and tendered their
evidence by way of affidavits Ex. RW-3/A, Ex. RW-2/A and
Ex. RW-1/A respectively. They further relied upon the
following documents in their evidence by way of affidavit.
(1) Ex. RW-1/A and Ex. RW-1/1A: Copy of public
notice published in newspaper dated 30.01.2013
and 31.01.2013.
(2) Ex. RW-1/B copy of legal notice sent to
complainant and respondent no.1
(3) Ex. RW-1/C and Ex. RW-1/C1 detailed complaint
dated 18.02.2013 made by deceased respondent
no.1 to SHO PS Anand Parbat and ACP Patel
Nagar.
(4) Ex. RW-1/D, Ex. RW-1/D1 and Ex. RW-1/D2
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 9 of24
detailed complaints dated 20.02.2013 made by
deceased respondent no.1 to SHO, DCP and
Commissioner of Police.
(5) Ex. RW-1/E the papers with respect to death of
respondent no.1.
(6) Ex. RW-1/A and Ex. RW-1/1A copy of complaints
made by respondents with respect to death of
respondent no.1.
(7) Ex. RW-1/G and Ex. RW-1/G1 copy of complaints
made by respondents no.2 and 3 against the
complainant.
17. The respondents further examined as RW-4 HC Shri
Krishan, PS Anand Parvat, who brought before the Court the
original DD register. RW-4 had deposed that on 16.07.2013
respondent no.3 Kamla Devi had given a complaint vide DD
No. 71 B dated 16.07.2013. The said DD entry is Ex. RW-
4/A. On 24.07.2013 respondent no.2 Ram Chander had
given a complaint vide DD No. 38 B dated 24.07.2013 and
the said DD entry is Ex. RW-4/B.
18. Respondents evidence was also closed vide order
dated 26.05.2018 as it was submitted by the respondents
that they do not wish to lead further respondents evidence.
Thereafter the matter was fixed for final arguments.
19. I have heard the final arguments as advanced by Ld.
Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material
available on record.
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 10 of24
20. Complainant by way of her affidavit Ex. CW1/A had
deposed verbatim on the same lines as that of her complaint.
She deposed that both children are in her care and custody.
The income of her late husband was contributed by him to
respondents no.2 and 3 and sometimes to respondent no.4
as well. Her husband was contributing his whole income to
his father and was maintaining good bank balalnce and
leading a luxurious life. She was thrown in three wearing
clothes out of the matrimonial house and all her stridhan is in
the custody and possession of the other respondents. She is
residing in her parental home and is having no source of
income. She is dependent totally upon her old aged parents.
She is unable to maintain herself and the minor children. As
respondent no.1 was under the influence of respondents
no.2 to 5 he never made any provision of maintenance for
the complainant and the minor children and after his death all
his income, assets and business profits, savings and live
stock, had been captured by the other respondents. They
had neither handed over his assets and property to her or to
the minor children, nor respondent no.2 and 3 being grand
parents had made any provision to maintain the minors.
21. She had further deposed that respondent no.2 in order
to destroy proofs and evidence with respect to the movable
and immovable property of respondent no.1 and the
properties in which large contribution of deceased
respondent no.1 was lying merged had done a fake
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 11 of24
transaction of sale of her shared house-hold and matrimonial
home and of ancestral properties of the minors. She had
even filed a civil suit for maintenance under Hindu Adoption
and Maintenance Act against respondent no.2 for herself and
for the minor children.
22. Complainant, in her cross-examination, had deposed
that her father runs a general store at Pahar Ganj. The
amount was spent in her marriage by her father. She had not
filed any receipt with respect to purchase of any article,
caterer, furniture etc. alongwith the complaint. All the receipts
were handed over to the respondents at the time of
marriage. After marriage she stayed in the matrimonial
home at A-78, Baba Farid Puri, West Patel Nagar, New
Delhi. She alongwith her deceased husband resided at the
first floor and respondents no.2 and 3 used to reside at the
ground floor.
23. She further deposed that at the time of her marriage
her husband owned and ran a saloon at Dwarka and was
having his own shop and staff used to work under him. Her
husband used to love her a lot and take care of her. Her
parents-in-law did not used to properly behave with her.
She had not filed any receipt/document with respect to the
medical expenses incurred at the time of birth of her first
child. She stayed in her matrimonial home for about 11
months after the birth of her first child and thereafter went on
her own to her parental home. After the birth of the second
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 12 of24
child she returned to the matrimonial home when her
husband and his family members came to take her to their
house. No medical document has been filed by her with
respect to any of the alleged beatings on 17.09.2011. She
had not made any police complaint on 17.09.2011. She
denied that she had shifted to a rented accommodation
alongwith her husband. She deposed that she is not aware
whether her parents-in-law had debarred her husband and
her and her children from all their movable and immovable
properties vide public notices.
24. Detailed affidavit of income, assets and expenditure
was not filed in the present case by the complainant.
25. The husband of the complainant had admittedly died
during the pendency of the present proceedings and the
matter stood abated viz-a-viz him.
26. Respondent no. 4 who is the brother-in-law of the
complainant had deposed on the same lines as that of the
reply. In his cross-examination as RW-1 he deposed that at
the time of marriage of complainant and deceased Rakesh,
he was living at H.No. 78, Baba Farid Puri, West Patel
Nagar, in a joint family. The husband of the complainant at
that time used to work in a saloon at Jeevan Park, Janakpuri.
He was not the owner of the said saloon and was employed
there. He did not did any other work except working in that
saloon. After marriage Rakesh did the work of supplier of
building material with someone. He did that work for few
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 13 of24
days only and worked under one Suhail.
27. Respondent no.4 further deposed that he was not
aware about the salary or the money earned by his late
brother by doing the work of parlour or supplier of building
material. He further deposed that for some time after
marriage of complainant with late Rakesh, a common kitchen
existed in the house, however, later on a separate kitchen
was constituted for Rakesh and his wife at the first floor. At
the time of his death, Rakesh was not residing with them at
the address of Baba Farid Puri and had shifted to a rented
accommodation at Prem Nagar, Patel Nagar in January
2013. He denied the suggestion that in order to save the
other joint family members from the rape case of Rakesh,
notices in newspapers were published by his parents at his
instance. He deposed that complaints Ex. RW-1/C, Ex. RW-
1/C1, Ex. RW-1/D, Ex. RW-1/D1 and Ex. RW-1/D2 are in the
handwriting of his brother Rakesh. He further deposed that
house no. 78 Baba Farid Puri was constructed on 40 sq.yds.
Plot upto second floor. His parents are residing with him
since July-August 2013. He further deposed that he had
purchased a house in March 2015 in the name of his wife.
The new house purchased by him is within a distance of 3-4
kilometers from H.No. 78, Baba Farid Puri. He is not residing
in house no. 78, Baba Farid Puri since February 2013.
28. Respondent no.3 had also by way of her affidavit
deposed on the same lines as that of her reply. She, in her
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 14 of24
cross-examination as RW-2, deposed that her late son
Rakesh used to do the work of hair-cutter at the time of
marriage. He did not had his own shop but was working
somewhere. She was not aware about the income of her
son at the time of marriage or prior to marriage or at the time
of his death. She used to look after the expenses of the
house. She further deposed that at the time of her marriage
she used to reside at Pahar Ganj. Later on they shifted to
H.No. 78, Baba Farid Puri. The said house was in the name
of her husband. When they had purchased the said house, it
was not fully built but was a kaccha structure. She does not
know the family of Gulab Devi. She also does not know the
value of her house in the year 2013 nor she knows that for
how much consideration her husband had sold the said
house. The house was sold by her husband two months
prior to the death of her son Rakesh.
29. Respondent no.2 by way of his affidavit had also
deposed on the same lines as that of his reply. He, in his
cross-examination as RW-3, deposed that at the time of
marriage his son Rakesh used to work as a barber at
Sagarpur, Janakpuri. His son was 10 th class fail and he left
the said work of barber after 4 months of marriage. His son
had been doing so many works but he is not aware about
the actual works done by his son after leaving the work of
barber. He was not aware about the income of his son at
any point of time. His son and complainant used to reside at
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 15 of24
the first floor of the house. He and his elder son, respondent
no.4 had a common kitchen whereas complainant and his
late son Rakesh had separate kitchen. He used to give
money to his late son to meet the daily expenses of his
family. He did not ask his son regarding his earnings. His
son also did the work of builder material in the area of Nilothi,
Nangloi, however, he cannot tell the name of that person with
whom his son was working. His son was falsely implicated in
a rape case of PS Anand Parbat. Police officers had come
to his house 8-10 days prior to the death of his son for
inquiry in that rape case. His son had shifted in a rented
house just 1½ months back out of his own will and desire.
His son died on 13.07.2013. He deposed that he does not
know who has written complaint Ex. RW-1/C, Ex. RW-1/C1,
Ex. RW-1/C2, Ex. RW-1/D, Ex. RW-1/D1 and Ex. RW-1/D2,
however, the said complaints are in his possession since the
time they were lodged in police station. He further do not
remember what is written in the said complaints. His elder
son had left his house four months prior to the separation of
deceased Rakesh and complainant. He does not remember
who had written complaint Ex. RW-1/G. He is not aware
about the contents of the said documents. On 24.07.2013,
two vans full of persons had come to his house in order to
create a ruckus. When his elder son shifted to West Patel
Nagar, he alongwith his wife started residing with him. He
started living with his elder son after the death of his younger
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 16 of24
son. He had sold out H.No. 78, Baba Farid Puri during the
life time of his son Late Rakesh and out of the sale proceeds
had given Rs. 50,000/- to the parents of the complainant.
The possession of the house was handed over to the
purchaser after 15 days of death of his son. He was told by
the property dealer that the market value of his house is Rs.
8,10,000/-. He had not informed his office regarding his
ownership of H.No. 78, Baba Farid Puri. The sale proceeds
were paid by him to his creditors.
30. From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties and
the evidence adduced, following admitted facts can be culled
out:-
(a) Complainant is the daughter-in-law of
respondents no.2 and 3 and is the sister-in-law of
respondent no.4.
(b) Two children were born out of the wedlock of
complainant and late Rakesh, whose custody is
with the complainant.
(c) The husband of the complainant, late Rakesh
had died an unnatural death on railway track.
(d) The husband of the complainant was wanted in a
rape case of PS Anand Parvat prior to his death
and police was even inquiring for him.
(e) After marriage, the complainant had resided with
respondents no.2,3 and 4 in shared house-hold
bearing No. A-78, Baba Farid Puri, West Patel
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 17 of24
Nagar, Delhi and therefore the parties were in
domestic relationship, however, the date of
separation is disputed as, as per complainant the
same is 21.01.2013 whereas as per respondents
the same is 23.01.2013.
31. It is the case of the complainant that she was subjected
to mental and physical cruelty by all the respondents on
account of her refusal to accede to their demands of dowry.
She was even mercilessly beaten various times and once
was even wrongfully confined in a room. She had threat of
life from respondents. She had even pleaded in her
complaint that it would be harmful and injurious for her to live
with the respondents in the same house-hold as she has
apprehension of danger to her life from the respondents.
She, however, had prayed that respondents be prohibited
from alienating shared house-hold bearing no. A-78, Baba
Farid Puri, West Patel Nagar, Delhi. She had further prayed
that respondents be directed to provided separate rented
accommodation to her and be directed to pay a sum of Rs.
25000/- per month to her for her maintenance and for the
maintenance of her minor children.
32. Admittedly respondent no. 1 had died. It was held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vimla Ben Ajit
Bhai Patel v. Vatsla Ben Ashok Bhai Patel and others (2008)
4 SCC 649 that responsibility of maintenance of wife during
subsistence of marriage is on the husband and the same is a
personal obligation. The obligation to maintain a daughter in law
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 18 of24
arises only when the husband had died. Such an obligation can
be met from the properties of which the husband is a co-sharer
and not otherwise.
33. As per Section 19 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
a father in law has the obligation to maintain his daughter in law
after the death of her husband if she is unable to maintain herself
and has no property of her own and is unable to obtain
maintenance from the estate of her husband or her father or
mother or from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate.
However, this obligation shall not be enforceable if the father
in law has not the means to do so from any co-parcenary
property in his possession out of which the daughter in law has
not obtained any share and any such obligation shall cease on
the re-marriage of the daughter in law.
34. Thus, the father in law had the liability to maintain the
daughter in law after the death of her deceased husband from the
co-parcenary property in his possession. Co-parcenary property
means a property in which there is joint heir-ship. In the said
property, there is unity of ownership and possession.
35. In the present case in hand it is the case of the complainant
that property bearing no. A-78, Baba Farid Puri, West Patel
Nagar, is her shared house-hold. It is nowhere alleged by her
that the said property was a joint family property or a co-
parcenary property. She had nowhere alleged that the said
property had devolved upon her father-in-law from his ancestors.
Per contra it has come in the cross-examination of
respondent no.2 and respondent no3 that the said property
was purchased by respondent no.2 during his lifetime and he
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 19 of24
had constructed the said property from a kaccha structure to
a permanent two floor building. It is further deposed by the
respondents that they have already sold the said property during
the life time of their deceased son. It is the case of the
complainant that the transaction with respect to the said property
is a sham transaction in order to deprive her and her children
from share in the said property. However, the complainant had
failed to show any contribution from her late husband
towards the development of the said property or that her
husband had contributed in the purchase of the said
property. It is categorically deposed by the respondents that the
said property was the self acquired property of respondent
no.2 and was not the joint family or co-parcenary property.
36. Further more, the complainant had not claimed right of
residence in the said property in her initial complaint as it was
her case that she had threat and apprehension towards her life,
while living together in a same shared house-hold with the
respondents. She had prayed for alternative
accommodation/rent. However, the said relief could only have
been awarded to the complainant from her husband but the
husband of the complainant had died. Father-in-law, that is,
respondent no.2 could have been directed to maintain the
complainant from the co-parcenary property in his possession. In
the present case the complainant by way of her evidence has
not been able to show the existence of any co-parcenary
property.
37. It is deposed by the complainant that her husband used to
contribute his entire savings in the family. However, the
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 20 of24
complainant has not been able to show the income of respondent
no.1. Though, she had deposed that her husband used to own
and run a parlour and staff used to work under him, however, she
in her pleadings had admitted that she came to know that her
husband did not owned the parlour and used to work therein and
instead had stated that she was pressurized to bring a sum of
Rs. 5 lacs in order to purchase a shop for respondent no.1. The
complainant had failed to file any document before the Court
which can throw light upon the income status of respondent no.1.
From the cross examination of the other respondents also the
income of respondent no.1 could not be culled out by the
complainant. It is deposed by the other respondents that they
were not aware regarding the earnings of respondent no.1.
38. The complainant further had not been able to establish
that any domestic violence was caused to her by the
respondents. She had neither filed nor proved even a single
document in order to support her contentions. She had alleged
that she was severely beaten, however, there is no medical
document on record. She had alleged that she was thrown out
of the house in lieu of dowry demands, various times after
inflicting merciless beatings and threats, however there is no
complaint on record except the present complaint. Further
more, she had alleged in her pleadings that during her second
pregnancy she was thrown out from the matrimonial house
after severe beatings when she was four months pregnant.
However, in her cross-examination she has admitted that she
had gone to her parental house on her own.
39. The respondents also had not been able to prove that the
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 21 of24
complainant alongwith her husband had started residing in a
rented accommodation separately from the other respondents, as
no rent agreement is placed on record nor the documents which
were relied upon by the respondents in their pleadings in order to
corroborate their submissions that complaints were made by
complainant and respondent no.1 from tenanted addresses have
been proved before the Court.
40. The complainant had further failed to prove the existence
of any stridhan article or dowry article which was alleged to be
in custody and possession of the respondents. Neither the
nature nor the nomenclature of the stridhan articles, jewelery
articles or dowry articles is specified. Further their existence
is not proved as no document had been filed which can
show their existence. No receipt or bill of whatsoever nature
is proved or filed before the Court. Further there is nothing on
record which can show that any particular article was handed
over by the complainant to the respondents which they have not
returned to her.
41. Thus, in the present case though living together in the
same shared house-hold and existence of domestic relationship
at the time of separation was admitted between the parties and
the date of separation which as per the complainant was
21.01.2013 and as per the respondents was 23.01.2013 was
within one year of filing of the complaint on 18.05.2013, however,
the complainant is not entitled for any relief from her parents-in-
law and brother-in-law in the absence of proof of domestic
violence at the hands of the respondents, in the absence of proof
of existence of any jewelery article, stridhan article or dowry
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 22 of24
article, in the absence of proof of existence of any co-parcenary
property and as the complainant herself had apprehension to her
life and security if she would reside in the same house hold with
the other respondents as stated in her complaint and as the
respondents had deposed that they had already disposed of the
shared house-hold.
42. Thus, as it was the case of complainant in her complaint
itself that she had apprehension towards her life and security at
the hands of the respondents and does not want to reside with
the respondents in the same house-hold, the relief cannot be
granted to the complainant after the death of her husband to
reside with the respondents. Moreso, the respondents have
deposed that respondent no.2 had already disposed off his self
acquired property during the lifetime of his late son. The
complainant had not been able to prove that the transaction with
respect to the property of A-78, Baba Farid Puri, was a sham
transaction. The complainant had nowhere given the suggestion
or had averred that the said property was the joint family property
or co-parcenary property. Per contra it is categorically deposed by
respondents no.2 and 3 that the said property was the self
acquired property of respondent no.2. Besides that property as
well, the complainant is not able to prove or even aver the
existence of any other co-parcenary property. The complainant is
even not able to establish that she was subjected to physical
violence or mental torture by the respondents. She has not
proved any medical document. She has not even proved the
filing of any complaint before the Court which had been alleged
by her in her complaint. Admittedly a case U/s 19 of Hindu
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 23 of24
Adoption and Maintenance Act had also been filed by the
complainant against respondent no.2. In view of the above said
discussions and findings in the absence of any cogent proof
regarding the domestic violence, regarding the existence of co-
parcenary property, regarding the existence of any property of
respondent no.1, regarding the existence of any stridhan or
dowry article of the complainant no relief can be granted in the
present complaint case to the complainant qua her parents-in-law
and brother-in-law. Accordingly the petition U/s 12 of the
PWDV Act is hereby disposed of as dismissed.
43. No orders as to cost and parties are directed to bear their
respective costs and litigation expenses keeping in view the facts
of the present case. File be consigned to Record Room after
due compliance. Digitally signed by
NEHA NEHA PALIWAL
PALIWAL Date: 2018.09.25
16:48:50 +0530
Announced in the Open Court NEHA PALIWAL
nd
on 22 September , 2018 MM-01, Mahila Court,
Central District, Tis Hazari Court
Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 24pages
and each page bears my signatures Digitally signed
by NEHA
PALIWAL
NEHA Date:
PALIWAL 2018.09.25
16:49:00
+0530
NEHA PALIWAL
MM-01, Mahila Court,
Central District, Tis Hazari Court
Delhi
CC No. 90/6/2013 Asha v. Rakesh Others Page 24 of24
