CR No.3833 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3833 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.7.2009 Shubhwant Kaur @ Subh ..Petitioner Vs. Lt.Col.Prithi Pal Singh Chugh & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Gauttam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner. --- 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) CMNo.15969-CII of 2009 This application has been filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to place on record Annexure P.1 to P.14 and further for exemption from filing the certified copies of Annexurs P.1 to P.11, P.13 and P.14 with permission to file true translated copies of Annexures P.4 and P.7, true photographs of Annexure P.6 as also true typed CR No.3833 of 2009 2 copies of Annexures P.1 to P.3, P.5 and P.8 to P.14.. For the reasons stated in the application, the prayer is granted. CM stands allowed. CR No.3833 of 2009 This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chandigarh, as affirmed by the learned lower appellate court, by order dated 3.6.2009 granting relief of temporary mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff/respondents. The plaintiff/respondents are father-in-law/mother-in-law of the petitioner/defendant No.2, who filed a suit for declaration, that the defendants have no right of residence at House No.1118, Sector 45-B, Chandigarh. Relief of mandatory injunction was prayed for directing the defendants, including the petitioner/defendant to vacate the property in dispute along with her family. Relief of permanent injunction was also prayed restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful life and liberty as well as privacy of the respondents. Prayer was also for restraining defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff/respondent from the house. In the said suit, petitioner herein moved an application under section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claiming right of resistance in the house of her in-laws. The learned courts below on the basis of pleadings and documents placed on record recorded that the following facts were not in dispute:- a) Sh.Pirthi Pal Singh is the exclusive owner of the house in question and it is his self-acquired property. CR No.3833 of 2009 3 b) Snt.Subhwant Kaur is his daughter-in-law. A divorce petition is pending between Shubhwant Kaur and Sh.Vikramjit Singh Chugh. c) On the statement of Smt.Shubhwant Kaur a Criminal case under section 307 IPC has been registered against Vikramjit Singh Chugh. d) Smt.Shubhwant Kaur along with her son is staying in the ground floor which consists kitchen, bathroom. e) Both the old aged plaintiffs have no other accommodation to stay in Chandigarh or in the adjoining area and earlier they were staying with her married daughter Poojneet Kaur Chugh wife of Sqn.Ldr. R.D.Fialhoand the later is working as a Combat Member of Indian Air Force and was posted at Air Force Station, Bathinda but now has been transferred to Guwahati w.e.f. 11.05.2009.” On the admitted facts learned courts below in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R.Batra Vs. Taruna Batra AIR 2007 SC 1119 recorded a finding that the petitioner has no right or claim residence in the self-acquired house of her father-in-law. However, in order to protect the rights of the petitioner, learned lower appellate court by way of impugned order has been pleased to order as under:- “ However, Vikramjit Singh Chugh husband of the appellant had undertook to provide three room set rented accommodation. He placed on file a rent note executed on CR No.3833 of 2009 4 16.05.2008 for a period of 11 months but the period of 11 months has expired. He is directed to place on record within one month from today a registered rent note providing minimum two bed room set accommodation for his wife and children within the area of Chandigarh and shall submit an application giving full particulars of such accommodation before trial court within one month from today. In case he failed to furnish the same then Smt.Shbhwant Kaur shall be entitled to arrange her own accommodation and in that eventuality she shall be entitled to recover the rent from Sh.Vikramjit Singh. However, Smt. Shubhwant Kaur is given 45 days time from today to vacate the premises in question and to put her old aged parents in law namely Pirthi Pal Singh and Harbhajan Kaur into possession.” Mr.R.S.Rai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of S.Prabhakaran Vs. State of Kerala 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 883, wherein Hon'ble Kerala High Court has been pleased to lay down, that wife has a right to live in the household, whether it be the joint family house of the husband or the residential building of the parents-in-law, if the wife lives or has at any stage lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the husband, to contend that the petitioner can claim right of residence in the house of father-in-law. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.R.Batra Vs. Taruna Batra CR No.3833 of 2009 5 (supra), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under:- “25. 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 husbands paternal grant parents,l his maternal parents, uncles, aunts,l brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted all these houses of the husbands relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist in living in the all these shared households and the wife can well insist in living in the 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.” 26. xx xx xx 28. As regards Section 17 (1) of the Act in our opinion the wife if 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 or which the husband Amit Batra is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant No.2, mother CR No.3833 of 2009 6 of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a “Shared household. 29. No doubt the definition of 'shared household in Section 2 (s) of the Act is not very happily worded, and appears tobe the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it can interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society.” Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Neetu Mittal Vs. Kanta Mittal 2008 (4) RCR (C) 630, has been pleased to lay down as under:- “ In fact the parents of the husband may allow him to live with them so long as their relations with the son (husband) are cordial and full of love and affection. But if the relations of the son or daughter in law with the parents of husband turn sour and are not cordial, the parents can turn them out of their house. The son can live in the house of parents as a matter of right only if the house is an ancestral house in which the son has a share and he can enforce the partition. Where the house is self-acquired house of the parents, son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal righty to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents up to the time the parents allow. Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents have to bear his burden through the life. 9. Once a person gain 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 CR No.3833 of 2009 7 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 disobedient son or a son which become liability on them or a son who disrespects or dis-regards them or becomes a source of nuisance for them or trouble for them The parents can always for sake 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. A woman has her rights of maintenance against her husband or sons/daughters. She can assert her rights, if any,l 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.” It is then contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order cannot be sustained as by way of interim order main relief itself stands granted. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the judgment of this court in the case of Balwant Singh CR No.3833 of 2009 8 Vs. Avtar Singh 2003 (3) PLR 854. This judgment is on the facts and circumstances of that particular case. This Hon'ble Court in this case has been pleased to lay down that an interim injunction resulting in grant of decree of main relief itself cannot be granted, as the entitlement is yet to be determined. However, this cannot be an absolute rule, though normal position as per settled law. This court in the case of M/s Aerizzona thru. Its Proprietor S.Surinder Singh Vs. Gurdarshan Singh Brar 2006 (6) RCR (Civil) 71 laid down, that there is no bar to grant of mandatory injunction in case three ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience, as well as irreparable injury being caused or likely to be caused is proved on record. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden and others (1990) 2 SCC 117, has been pleased to lay down as under:- “ Since the relief of an interim injunction is all the same an equitable relief the court shall also consider whether the comparative mischief or inconvenience which is likely to ensue from withholding the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to arise from granting it, which means that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff seeking the relief. xx xx xx The grant or refusal of an interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case. Though the above guidelines are neither exhaustive nor complete or absolute rules, and there may be exceptional CR No.3833 of 2009 9 circumstances needing action, apply them as prerequisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion.” This view was again followed in the case of Metro Marins and another Vs. Bonus Watch Co.(P) Ltd. And others (2004) 7 SCC 478. If the principles laid down above are applied to the facts of the present case it would be seen that the plaintiff/respondents being absolute owners have a prima facie case to have possession of the property which was illegally taken by the petitioners, without any legal right. Learned courts below in view of the comparative mischief and inconvenience rightly held that the respondent-plaintiffs were entitled to interim mandatory injunction. Second contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners also deserves to be rejected. No merit. Dismissed. 14.07. 2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge