Delhi District Court
Roop Misra And Anr vs Nidhi Misra on 19 April, 2025
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, CIVIL
JUDGE-01 (SOUTH) SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No:- 1244/17
CNR No:- DLST03-002179-2017
1. SMT. ROOP MISRA
W/o WG CDR A.K. Misra (Retd)
R/o H-35B, Saket,
New Delhi-110017 ......PLAINTIFF NO. 1
2. WG. CDR. A. K. MISRA
S/o Late Sh. R. S. Misra
R/o H-35B, Saket,
New Delhi-110017 ......PLAINTIFF NO. 2
VERSUS
SMT. NIDHI MISRA
W/o Sh. Anubhav Misra
R/o H-35B, Saket,
New Delhi-110017 ......DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 19.12.2017
Date of Decision : 19.04.2025
Date of framing of issues : 27.01.2020
Date of final arguments : 04.02.2025
Decision : DISMISSED
SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT:
–
1. The present suit is being filed by the plaintiffs seeking
Digitally signed
ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV
SHARMA
Page no. 1 of 33 SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19
17:01:12 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
relief of permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant
in respect of the suit property bearing no. H-35B, Saket, New Delhi-
110017 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”).
2. It is pertinent to mention that originally, there were two
defendants in the present suit – (i) the present defendant and (ii) her
husband, Mr. Anubhav Misra, who is also the son of the plaintiffs.
However, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs moved an
application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 seeking deletion of the name of Mr. Anubhav Misra from the
array of parties and withdrawal of reliefs sought against him on the
ground that he had vacated and left the suit property. Accordingly,
vide order dated 25.04.2018, Mr. Anubhav Misra was deleted from
the present suit.
AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT:-
3. Succinctly, it is the case of the plaintiffs is that Plaintiff
No. 1 is the absolute owner and is in possession of the suit property,
which is his self-acquired property. The defendant is the daughter-
in-law of the plaintiffs and started residing in the suit property as
licensee in the second bedroom after her marriage to Mr. Anubhav
Misra. She also uses the common areas of the suit property along
with the plaintiffs.
4. It is submitted that since the year 2015, the defendant,
in collusion with her husband, has been exerting pressure upon the
plaintiffs to transfer the ownership of the suit property in her name.
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19
Page no. 2 of 33 17:01:19 +0530(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRAThe plaintiffs have also been subjected to continuous mental
harassment by the defendant. The defendant, in connivance with her
husband, filed false and frivolous criminal complaint bearing CT
Case No. 12580/17 titled “Nidhi Mishra vs. Anubhav Mishra &
Ors.” against the plaintiffs which is pending before the Hon’ble
Mahila Court (MM-02), South District, Saket, New Delhi.
5. It is further mentioned that the plaintiffs have a genuine
and reasonable apprehension that the defendant may forcibly
dispossess them from the suit property in order to fulfill her
unlawful intentions. It is further submitted that the defendant
habitually calls the police by dialing 100 without any justifiable
reason, causing continuous panic, fear, and harassment to the
plaintiffs. The continued stay of the defendant in the suit property is
causing severe mental distress and trauma to the plaintiffs. Despite
repeated requests, the defendant and her husband have refused to
vacate the premises. Having left with no other option, present suit
was filed seeking following reliefs: –
(i) Pass a decree for mandatory injunction thereby directing the
defendant to vacate the suit property i.e. H-35B, Saket, New Delhi
(2nd bedroom) along with their belongings;
(ii) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the
defendant, her agents, successors, legal heirs, family members,
servants etc. from interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit
property; and
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19
Page no. 3 of 33 17:01:26 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
(iii) Any other relief.
AVERMENTS IN WRITTEN STATEMENT:-
6. Per contra, the defendant respectfully submits that the
present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed at the
very outset for being devoid of any basis or merit. It has been filed
solely with the intent to illegally evict the defendant from her
matrimonial home.
7. Further, the suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC, as it discloses no cause of action in favour of the
plaintiffs. The property in question is the matrimonial home of the
defendant, where she resides lawfully with her two minor children,
aged 10 and 8 years. The plaintiffs have suppressed material facts,
notably, in Complaint Case No. 12580/17, the Ld. MM (Mahila
Court), Saket, passed an order dated 03.11.2017, restraining the
plaintiffs’ son from forcibly dispossessing the defendant. This
crucial order has been deliberately concealed from this Hon’ble
Court.
8. Additionally, the present suit is a counterblast to the
domestic violence proceedings initiated by the defendant under the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The
plaintiffs’ claim that their son vacated the property is misleading, as
in other proceedings, he has merely stated that he shifted to Pune for
work-indicating clear collusion.
9. Moreover, it is mentioned that the defendant had also
Digitally signed
ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19
Page no. 4 of 33 17:01:37 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to
registration of an FIR against the plaintiffs and their son for acts of
cruelty and harassment. The defendant continues to face both mental
and physical abuse at their hands. The plaintiffs have failed to seek
relief of possession and have instead filed this suit for injunction
only to evade payment of appropriate court fees, rendering the suit
non-maintainable.
10. It is averred that the suit is also barred under Section 10
CPC, as the plaintiffs have already initiated parallel proceedings–
Petition No. 16/2018 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents
and Senior Citizens Act, 2007–before the District Magistrate,
Saket, seeking eviction of the defendant. The existence of this
petition was not disclosed, thereby showing that the plaintiffs have
not approached the court with clean hands. Furthermore, in the DV
proceedings, the Ld. MM vide interim order dated 20.02.2018, has
restrained the plaintiffs from forcibly dispossessing the defendant,
which has also been suppressed in the present suit.
11. The defendant reiterates that she is residing lawfully in
her matrimonial home, and the allegations made by the plaintiffs are
false and denied in toto. Further, defendant described various
incidents where acts of domestic violence has been committed
against her by the plaintiffs and their son. All the other averments of
the plaint are denied. Hence, it is prayed that suit be dismissed.
REPLICATION:-
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19
Page no. 5 of 33
17:01:44 +0530(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
12. In replication, averments of the plaint have been
reiterated and contents of the written statement have been denied.
however, it is admitted that the petition filed by the plaintiffs before
District Magistrate under the provisions of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Senior Citizen Act was rejected by the District
Magistrate.
ISSUES:-
13. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated
27.01.2020:-
(i) Whether the defendant is residing in the second
bedroom of the suit property as the licensee of
plaintiff? OPP
(ii) Whether defendant has illegally refused to vacate
the above said portion despite the termination of
license by plaintiff? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of
mandatory injunction, as sought for? OPP
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of
permanent injunction, as sought for? OPP
(v) Whether the present suit is barred by the principle
of res-judicata u/S 11 CPC? OPD
(vi) Whether the present suit is barred u/S 27 of
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
Page no. 6 of 33 2025.04.19
17:01:50 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
Citizen Act, 2007? OPD
(vii) Whether the present suit has been filed in
collusion with the son of plaintiff namely Anubhav
Mishra who was earlier the defendant no. 1 in the suit?
OPD
(viii) Whether the plaintiff has approached the court
without clean hands and by suppressing and
misrepresenting material facts before the court? OPD
(ix) Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE:-
14. To prove their case, plaintiff no. 1 herself stepped into
the witness box as PW-1 and tendered her affidavit as Ex. PW1/A.
She placed reliance upon the following documents:
(i) Ex. PW1/B (OSR) i.e. Copy of Aadhar card;
(ii) Mark A i.e. Copy of site plan;
(iii) Ex. PW1/C (OSR) i.e. Conveyance deed;
(iv) Mark B i.e. Copy of order dated 03.11.2017;
(v) Mark C i.e. Copy of complaint under Section 12 DV Act; and
(vi) Mark D i.e. Discharge summary dated 10.11.2017.
15. PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
defendant. Brief Summary of PW1 Cross-Examination, during cross
examination, PW1 admitted that she is currently residing in Pune
with her husband and son, Anubhav Mishra. She confirmed that the
defendant (her daughter-in-law) continues to reside at the suit
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
Page no. 7 of 33
2025.04.19
17:01:58 +0530(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRAproperty. She acknowledged that she has not filed any police
complaint or complaint before any authority regarding the alleged
pressure exerted by her son and daughter-in-law since 2015 to
transfer the suit property. She also admitted that she has not filed
any complaint regarding nuisance or disturbance by the defendant.
She stated that the suit property is her self-acquired property and
that her son and daughter-in-law have no legal rights over it. She
admitted that she deleted her son Anubhav Mishra from the array of
parties despite alleging that he continued to pressure her regarding
the property. It was admitted that the defendant filed a DV case
against her, her husband, and her son, and that an FIR (No.
586/2017 under Sections 323/342/498-A/506/509 IPC) was also
registered. She denied allegations of domestic violence but
acknowledged the existence of the case and orders restraining them
from forcibly evicting the defendant.
16. PW1 admitted to filing an eviction petition dated
27.03.2018 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which was dismissed by the District
Magistrate on 09.07.2018. She denied that the present suit is barred
by res judicata or Section 27 of the said Act. She admitted that the
defendant came to reside at the suit property post-marriage but
denied that it is the defendant’s matrimonial home. She also denied
the defendant’s legal right to stay in the property. She admitted to
the existence of orders dated 03.11.2017 (Ex. PW1/D1), 20.02.2018
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19
Page no. 8 of 33 17:02:05 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
(Ex. PW1/D2), and 09.04.2018 (Ex. PW1/D3), restraining any
forcible dispossession of the defendant from the suit property
without due process of law.
17. PW1 denied any collusion with her son Anubhav
Mishra to dispossess the defendant; despite admitting she resides
with him in Pune. She admitted that no written notice was given to
the defendant. She consistently denied claims that the present suit is
false or filed in collusion to forcibly dispossess the defendant. PW1
cross-examination was concluded on 20.12.2021.
18. Thereafter, Sh. WG Cdr. A K Misra who is plaintiff no. 2
was examined himself as PW2 and tendered his affidavit of
evidence as Ex. PW2/A. He has also placed reliance upon the
documents which are already relied by plaintiff no. 1 including the
following documents i.e.
(i) Ex. PW2/B (OSR) i.e. Copy of Aadhar card; and
(iii) Ex. PW2/C i.e. Copy of ex-serviceman ID card.
19. PW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
defendant. Brief Summary of Cross-Examination of PW2 (Husband
of PW1), During cross examination, it is stated that he has been
residing in Pune with his wife and son Anubhav Mishra since April
2019. He admitted that his son, initially a party to the suit, was later
deleted from the array of parties, though he does not recall whether
this occurred before service of summons. He admitted that no
complaints were filed with the police or any authority regarding the
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19
Page no. 9 of 33 17:02:12 +0530(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRAalleged pressure from either his son or daughter-in-law to transfer
the suit property since 2015, stating it was treated as a “personal
matter”.
20. PW2 denied allegations that he, in collusion with his
son, filed the present suit to dispossess the defendant. He also
denied that the amended plaint contains the same allegations as the
original, showing collusion. He admitted that the defendant filed a
DV case under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act against
him, his wife, and his son. He also acknowledged that an FIR was
registered against them under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, but denied
all allegations of harassment or dowry demands. He admitted the
order dated 03.11.2017 was not against him or his wife.
21. PW2 stated that he submitted complaints regarding
threats from the defendant to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,
Defence Minister, Human Rights Commission, and SHO, PS Saket.
However, he admitted these applications were not filed with the
plaint or made part of the record. He admitted that he has not served
any written notice or document asking the defendant to vacate the
property. He admitted that the defendant began living at the suit
property after her marriage to his son. He also admitted to the
existence of orders dated 20.02.2018 and 09.04.2018 (Ex. PW1/D2
& Ex. PW1/D3), which restrain him and his wife from forcibly
evicting the defendant without due process of law.
22. PW2 denied that the suit property is the matrimonial
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19
Page no. 10 of 33 17:02:19 +0530(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRAhome of the defendant or that she has any legal right to reside there.
He admitted to filing an eviction petition dated 27.03.2018 under the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007,
which was dismissed on 09.07.2018. He denied that this remedy
bars him from pursuing the present civil suit or that the suit is hit by
res judicata or is a counter-blast to the DV complaint and FIR. PW2
cross-examination was concluded on 11.08.2023.
23. Thereafter, Sh. Rohit Vats from the office of SRVII
INA, New Delhi was examined as PW3. He has brought the
conveyance deed bearing registration no. 199 Additional Book no. I,
Volume 3572 on page no. 39 to 41 registered on 06.01.2010 as Ex.
PW1/C.
24. During cross-examination, it stated that he is working
as Data Entry Operator from the last one year and he does not know
anything about the case. PW3 cross-examination was concluded on
22.09.2023. Thereafter, vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for
plaintiffs, plaintiff evidence was closed on 22.11.2023 and matter
was fixed for defendant evidence.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE:-
25. On the other hand, in support of her case, defendant
was examined herself as DW1 who tendered her affidavit of
evidence as Ex. DW1/A and has relied upon documents which are
already exhibited as Ex. PW1/D1 i.e. copy of order dated
03.11.2017 of Ld. MM, Mahila Court, Saket, Ex. PW1/D2 i.e. copy
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19
Page no. 11 of 33 17:02:26 +0530(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRAof order dated 20.02.2018 and Ex. PW1/D3 i.e copy of order dated
09.04.2018. She has also relied upon following documents i.e.
(i) Ex. DW1/1 (OSR) i.e. Copy of DD no. 46B/ complaint dated
12.10.2017;
(ii) Mark A (exhibited as Ex. DW1/2 in the affidavit) i.e. Copy to
copy of MLC bearing no. 9222/2017;
(iii) Ex. DW1/3 i.e. Copy of order dated 23.11.2017 of Ld.
ACMM;
(iv) Ex. DW1/4 i.e. Copy of FIR no. 0586/2017 u/s 323/
342/498A/506/509 IPC PS Saket;
(v) Ex. DW1/5 i.e. Copy of order dated 09.01.2018 of Ld. MM-02
Mahila Court;
(vi) Mark B (exhibited as Ex. DW1/6 in the affidavit) i.e. Copy
of questionnaire;
(vii) Mark C (exhibited as Ex. DW1/7 in the affidavit) i.e. Copy
of application dated 03.04.2018;
(viii) Ex. DW1/8 (OSR) i.e. Copy of complaint dated 19.02.2018;
(ix) Ex. DW1/9 (OSR) i.e. Copy of complaint dated 24.02.2018;
(x) Mark D (exhibited as Ex. DW1/10 in the affidavit) i.e. Copy
of complaint dated 05.03.2018;
(xi) Ex. DW1/11 (OSR) i.e. Copy of complaint dated 06.03.2018;
(xii) Mark E (exhibited as Ex. DW1/12 in the affidavit) i.e. Copy
of complaint dated 13.03.2018;
(xiii) Ex. DW1/13 (colly) i.e. Copy of eviction petition dated
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
Page no. 12 of 33
2025.04.19
17:02:33 +0530(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA27.03.2018 and order of Ld. DM dated 09.07.2018 (admitted
during cross-examination dated 20.12.2021); and
(xiv) Mark A/DW1 (colly) i.e. Copies of cheques no. 148224 and
173426.
26. DW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
plaintiffs. Brief Summary of Cross-Examination of DW1, during
cross examination, DW1 stated she is a teacher at a play school,
earning a monthly salary of ₹12,000. Apart from the complaint
marked as Ex. DW1/1, she admitted to not filing any other police
complaints against the plaintiffs prior to the present suit. She
admitted that she has not placed any documentary proof to show
that the suit property was listed on magicbricks.com, though she
claims several potential buyers visited the property around
November-December 2017. She could not recall their names.
27. DW1 acknowledged that no judicial order exists
requiring the plaintiffs (her in-laws) to provide her or her children
with maintenance. She admitted that the plaintiffs have two sons —
her husband Sh. Anubhav Misra and Sh. Abhinav Misra, who
resides in the U.S.A. She also confirmed that the plaintiffs are not
residing at the suit property (H-35/B, Saket). She admitted that in
Petition No. 16/2018 filed under the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, no evidence was led by
either side, though an inquiry was conducted by the Patwari.
28. DW1 could not recall the exact date when she filed her
Digitally signed
ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19
Page no. 13 of 33 17:02:40 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
domestic violence complaint and was uncertain whether the
summons in that case was issued after the filing of the present civil
suit. She denied that she ceased to be a licensee of the plaintiffs after
her husband moved out of the property. She also denied that the
plaintiffs have not suppressed any material facts or that the present
suit is not barred by res judicata or Section 27 of the Senior Citizens
Act. DW1 cross-examination was concluded on 22.01.2024.
29. Further, Sh. Raj Singh was a summoned witness from
Junior Medical Record Officer, AIIMS was examined as DW2. He
has brought the original MLC bearing no. 9222/2017 dated
12.10.2017 of patient Nidhi w/o Anubhav r/o H-35B, Block H,
Saket, New Delhi. It is stated that the MLC was prepared by Dr.
Shahadat Hussain, Jr. Resident. It is stated that he has left the
hospital on 20.01.2018. It is stated that he was working in the
hospital w.e.f. 01.07.2016 to 19.01.2018. It is stated that he worked
with Dr. Shahadat Hussain and he knows the signatures of Dr.
Shahadat Hussain and he can identify the same. It is stated that the
signatures in the MLC bearing no. 9222/2017 at point A is of Dr.
Shahadat Hussain as Mark A on 16.12.2023 is now Ex. DW2/A
(OSR).
30. DW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
plaintiffs. During cross-examination, it is stated that he does not
work in the Trauma Centre, AIIMS. It is denied that he has brought
a forged and fabricated document Ex. DW2/A (OSR) upon the
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
Page no. 14 of 33
2025.04.19
17:02:47 +0530(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRAasking of the defendant. DW2 cross-examination was concluded on
22.02.2024. Thereafter, defendant evidence was closed on
08.05.2024 and matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
31. Final arguments advanced by both parties were heard
on 04.02.2025. During arguments, Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs has
relied upon certain judgment in support of his contentions i.e. Prem
Kishore & Ors. Vs. Brahim Prakash & Ors. 2023 Livelaw (SC)
266 and Anmol & Anr. Vs. Sushila WP (C) 13825/2022. During
arguments, Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied upon certain
judgment in support of his contentions i.e. (i) Sneha Ahuja Vs.
Satish Chander Ahuja RFA 222/2019 and (ii) Satish Chander
Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja AIR Online 2020 SC 784.
32. The file has been carefully and minutely perused and
my issue-wise findings with reasons thereof are as under: –
ISSUE NO.1
Whether the defendant is residing in the second bedroom of the
suit property as the licensee of plaintiff? OPP
33. The primary issue for consideration before this Court is
whether the defendant resided in the suit property merely as a
licensee, as claimed by the plaintiffs, or whether she is entitled to
reside therein by virtue of the suit property being her “shared
household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “DV Act“).
Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2025.04.19 Page no. 15 of 33 17:02:55 +0530 (Anubhav Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ 1244/17 SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
34. The burden of proof to establish that the defendant
resided in the suit premises merely as a licensee lies with the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have asserted that the defendant began
residing in the suit property following her marriage to their son, Mr.
Anubhav Misra, and continued to reside there solely under a license
granted by them. In support of this contention, they rely upon the
testimonies of PW1 and PW2, who have both deposed that the
defendant’s occupation of the suit premises was by way of
permission. Additionally, the plaintiffs have claimed exclusive
ownership over the suit property and placed on record Ex. PW1/C
for the ownership proof. He further stated that the defendant, having
no independent legal or proprietary right, cannot continue to occupy
the premises.
35. On the other hand, the defendant has categorically
contended that the suit property is her “shared household” and
constitutes her matrimonial home. She asserts that she has the legal
right to reside in the suit property on account of her marital
relationship with the plaintiffs’ son. Furthermore, she contends that
she is protected by interim orders passed in proceedings under the
DV Act and cannot be dispossessed without following due process
of law.
36. Before examining the merits of the respective claims, it
is important to note that this Court derives jurisdiction to adjudicate
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19
17:03:07 +0530Page no. 16 of 33
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRAthe defendant’s right of residence by virtue of Section 26(1) of the
DV Act, which reads:
“Any relief available under Sections 18, 19,
20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any
legal proceeding, before a civil court,
family court or a criminal court, affecting
the aggrieved person and the respondent
whether such proceeding was initiated
before or after the commencement of this
Act.”
37. In light of the above provision, the defendant, being an
aggrieved person, is entitled to seek relief under Section 19 of the
DV Act in this civil suit instituted by the plaintiffs. The said section
provides for the right of residence and enables the Court to grant
protection against unlawful dispossession.
38. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja
v. Sneha Ahuja (2020 SCC OnLine SC 841) laid down the
conditions under which a woman can claim the right of residence in
a shared household under Sections 17 and 19 of the DV Act. The
following three conditions must be satisfied:
1. That the aggrieved person was living in a domestic
relationship with the respondent and not merely as a licensee;
2. That the aggrieved person is a victim of domestic violence;
3. That the domestic violence was committed by the respondent
against whom the relief is claimed.
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.19
17:03:15
Page no. 17 of 33 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
39. To examine whether the suit property qualifies as a
“shared household,” reference must be made to Section 2(f) and
Section 2(s) of the DV Act, which define “domestic relationship”
and “shared household” respectively.
40. It is an admitted fact that the defendant is the legally
wedded wife of the plaintiffs’ son and began residing in the suit
property upon her marriage. The plaintiffs themselves have
acknowledged that she was occupying one of the bedrooms in the
suit property and availing the common facilities therein. These facts
satisfy the first requirement–that the defendant was residing in the
property in a domestic relationship.
41. Further, it is immaterial whether the defendant has any
ownership interest in the suit property. As clarified by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, a “shared household” can be one where the
aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship, irrespective of
ownership or tenancy rights, and even if the property belongs solely
to the joint family of the respondent.
42. Hence, applying the interpretation laid down in Satish
Chander Ahuja (supra), this Court finds that the suit property
qualifies as a shared household for the purpose of determining the
defendant’s right of residence.
43. The second aspect to be examined is whether the
defendant has been subjected to domestic violence by the plaintiffs
and their son. The defendant has placed on record several
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.19
Page no. 18 of 33 17:03:22
+0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
documents to support her claims, including Ex. DW1/1: Copy of
DD No. 46B/Complaint dated 12.10.2017, Ex. DW2/A: Copy of
MLC bearing No. 9222/2017, Ex. DW1/4 to Ex. DW1/12: Orders,
FIRs, medical records, and multiple complaints filed before
authorities.
44. Although during her cross-examination the defendant
admitted that apart from Ex. DW1/1, she did not file additional
complaints before filing the present suit, the plaintiffs themselves
admitted during their cross-examination that they too had never
filed any complaint regarding alleged pressure from their son and
daughter-in-law to transfer the suit property.
45. Upon a cumulative reading of the complaint, the FIR
(Ex. DW1/4), and the orders of the Domestic Violence Court (Ex.
DW1/5 and others), along with the corroborative medical records,
this Court is of the considered opinion that there is sufficient
evidence to establish instances of domestic violence. Accordingly,
the defendant has successfully discharged the burden of proof with
respect to the second and third conditions – namely, that she
qualifies as an “aggrieved person” under the Domestic Violence Act
and that acts of domestic violence were perpetrated against her by
the plaintiffs and their son.
46. Having carefully considered the pleadings, the evidence
on record, and the legal principles enunciated in Satish Chander
Ahuja (supra), this Court finds that the defendant has successfully
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19
Page no. 19 of 33 17:03:29 +0530(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRAestablished that she was residing in the suit property in a domestic
relationship with the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the suit property
qualifies as a “shared household” within the meaning of Section 2(s)
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The
defendant has also adduced sufficient evidence to prove that she was
subjected to acts of domestic violence by the plaintiffs and their son.
Thus, she has fulfilled all the legal requirements to assert and claim
her right of residence under the said Act.
47. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendant
was residing in the suit property merely as a licensee is found to be
untenable. The concept of a license implies a revocable permission
to occupy the premises. However, in the context of matrimonial
disputes, the rights of the wife flow from matrimonial law and the
DV Act, not from the law of licenses.
48. Accordingly, the issue is decided against the plaintiffs.
The defendant, having fulfilled all the conditions set forth under the
law, is entitled to continue residing in the suit property as a matter of
right, and not as a mere licensee.
ISSUE NO.2
Whether defendant has illegally refused to vacate the above said
portion despite the termination of license by plaintiff? OPP
49. This issue is directly dependent upon the plaintiffs’
ability to establish that the defendant was residing in the suit
property merely as a licensee. As discussed in the findings on Issue
Digitally signed
ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19
Page no. 20 of 33 17:03:36 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
No. 1, the Court has held that the defendant’s occupation cannot be
termed as that of a licensee, but is instead protected under the
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as she has a right of residence in the
shared household.
50. Even assuming, arguendo, that the defendant was
residing under a license, the plaintiffs would still be required to
establish that the said license was validly terminated. It is a well-
settled principle of law that termination of a license must be
preceded by a reasonable notice. In the present case, the plaintiffs
have admitted that no written notice was ever served upon the
defendant for termination of the alleged license.
51. Further, in cases involving matrimonial disputes and
allegations of domestic violence, courts are required to adopt a
stricter standard while examining claims related to the right of
residence. In the absence of any formal notice or legally valid
termination, coupled with the existence of rights accruing under
matrimonial and protective statutes, this Court finds no merit in the
plaintiffs’ claim that the defendant has refused to vacate the
premises illegally. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the
plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO.3
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction,
as sought for? OPP
&
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19
Page no. 21 of 33 17:03:43 +0530(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRAISSUE NO.4
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction,
as sought for? OPP
52. Since both issues are interrelated, they are being
considered together for the sake of brevity. The burden to prove
these issues is upon plaintiffs. The reliefs sought by the plaintiffs are
premised on the assertion that the defendant is a mere licensee and
is occupying the property without any legal right. However, as held
under Issue No. 1, the defendant has a legally protected right of
residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, and the property qualifies as her shared household.
53. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja
v. Sneha Ahuja (2020 SCC OnLine SC 841) has clarified that the
wife’s right to reside in her matrimonial home is not dependent on
ownership and cannot be defeated merely by describing her as a
licensee.
54. Granting a mandatory injunction directing the
defendant to vacate the premises would effectively nullify her
statutory right of residence and contravene the protective spirit of
the DV Act. Likewise, granting a permanent injunction restraining
her from asserting such rights would be equally unjustified.
55. Accordingly, as the plaintiffs have failed to establish
the alleged license or any illegality in the defendant’s continued
occupation, they are not entitled to either mandatory or permanent
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
Page no. 22 of 33
2025.04.19
17:03:50 +0530(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRAinjunction. Accordingly, these issues are decided against the
plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO. 5
Whether the present suit is barred by the principle of res-judicata
u/S 11 CPC? OPD
&
ISSUE NO. 6
Whether the present suit is barred u/S 27 of Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007? OPD
56. Since both issues are interrelated, they are being
considered together for the sake of brevity. The burden to prove
these issues is upon defendant. The defendant contends that the
plaintiffs had previously filed an eviction petition under the Senior
Citizens Act, 2007, and that the dismissal of the same constitutes res
judicata in the present proceedings. It is also argued that the present
suit is barred under Section 27 of the Senior Citizens Act.
57. The principle of res judicata, as enshrined in Section 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure, prevents the re-litigation of issues
that have been directly and substantially decided in a former suit
between the same parties. To examine the plea of res judicata, it is
necessary to apply the well-settled conditions laid down in Sheodan
Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, AIR 1966 SC 1332 wherein it has been
held that:-
“1. The matter directly and substantially in
issue in the subsequent suit or issue must
Digitally signed by
ANUBHAV ANUBHAVPage no. 23 of 33 SHARMA
SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.19
17:03:56 +0530(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRAbe the same matter which was directly and
substantially in issue either actually or
constructively in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit
between the same parties or between parties
under whom they or any of them claim.
3. Such parties must have been litigating
under the same title in the former suit.
4. The Court which decided the former suit
must be a court competent to try the
subsequent suit or the suit in which such
issue is subsequently raised.
5. The matter directly and substantially in
issue in the subsequent suit must have been
heard and finally decided by the court in
the former suit.”
58. In the present case, it is noted that the plaintiffs had
previously initiated proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare
of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, before the District
Magistrate, asserting their status as senior citizens. In contrast, the
present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs in their capacity as
the owners and licensors of the suit property.
59. It is significant to note that the order dated 09.07.2018
Ex. DW1/13, passed in the earlier proceedings (Case No. 16/18),
specifically records that, according to the SDM Inquiry Report, the
allegations of harassment made against the respondent/defendant
could not be substantiated. The scope of the proceedings under the
Senior Citizens Act was confined solely to examining the alleged
harassment of the plaintiffs. Digitally signed
ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19
17:04:02 +0530
Page no. 24 of 33
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
60. On the other hand, the present suit is based on the
plaintiffs’ assertion of ownership and their alleged entitlement to
possession of the suit property, which they claim to be their self-
acquired property purchased from their own funds. During cross-
examination, the defendant admitted that no evidence was led by
either party in the prior proceedings, and that the inquiry conducted
therein was limited to a fact-finding exercise by the Patwari.
61. As per the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s observations in
Anmol & Anr. v. Sushila, W.P.(C) 13825/2022, forums under the
Senior Citizens Act are not competent to adjudicate civil property
rights.
62. The reliefs sought in the present suit do not stem from
any allegation of harassment but are instead grounded in the
plaintiffs’ claimed proprietary rights. Therefore, the subject matter
and the issues directly and substantially in question in the two
proceedings are distinct. Furthermore, as no evidence was recorded
and no adjudication took place upon the merits of the case in the
earlier proceedings, it cannot be said that the matter was
conclusively decided after the application of judicial mind.
63. Consequently, the essential conditions for the
applicability of the doctrine of res judicata are not satisfied, and the
present suit cannot be held to be barred under the said principle.
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19
Page no. 25 of 33 17:04:11
+0530(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
64. Moving further, with regard to the objection raised
under Section 27 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the said provision reads as follows:
Section 27 – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
Barred: “No Civil Court shall have
jurisdiction in respect of any matter to
which any provision of this Act applies and
no injunction shall be granted by any Civil
Court in respect of anything which is done
or intended to be done by or under this Act.”
65. A plain reading of this provision makes it clear that the
jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred only in respect of matters that
are specifically covered under the provisions of the said Act. In the
present case, the plaintiffs are not seeking any relief under the
Senior Citizens Act. Instead, they are seeking possession of the suit
property through a decree of mandatory injunction, asserting their
independent legal right as owners of the self-acquired property.
66. It is also well settled that Civil Courts have jurisdiction
to entertain and try all suits of a civil nature, unless their cognizance
is expressly or impliedly barred. Section 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, reinforces this principle by providing that Civil
Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all civil suits except those of
which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
67. In the present matter, the plaintiffs have sought relief in
the nature of mandatory and permanent injunctions, arising from the
alleged infringement of their proprietary rights. The cause of action
Digitally signed
ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19
Page no. 26 of 33 17:04:20 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
in the present suit is not derived from, nor does it depend upon, any
provision of the Senior Citizens Act. The reliefs claimed are based
purely on civil rights emanating from ownership and possession of
immovable property.
68. Accordingly, the bar under Section 27 of the Senior
Citizens Act does not apply to the present proceedings. The suit is,
therefore, held to be maintainable before this Court. Therefore,
these issues are decided against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. 7
Whether the present suit has been filed in collusion with the son
of plaintiff namely Anubhav Mishra who was earlier the
defendant no. 1 in the suit? OPD
&
ISSUE NO. 8
Whether the plaintiff has approached the court without clean
hands and by suppressing and misrepresenting material facts
before the court? OPD
69. These issues are considered together due to their
overlapping nature. The burden to prove these issues is upon
defendant. The defendant has alleged that the present suit has been
filed by the plaintiffs in collusion with their son, Mr. Anubhav
Mishra, to evict her from her matrimonial home. She highlights the
removal of Mr. Mishra as a party from the suit and the plaintiffs’
current cohabitation with him in Pune, despite alleging harassment,
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
Page no. 27 of 33 2025.04.19
17:04:26 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
as indicative of collusion.
70. During cross-examination, the plaintiffs admitted that
they are currently residing with their son, which casts serious doubt
on their claims of discord. Additionally, their failure to file police
complaints against their son, despite alleging harassment, raises
further questions about the credibility of their narrative.
71. The defendant has also brought to the Court’s notice
that the plaintiffs failed to disclose the pendency of the earlier
eviction petition and ongoing DV proceedings in their pleadings.
This suppression of material facts undermines the principle of
“uberrimae fidei” (utmost good faith), which governs parties
approaching a court of equity.
72. In view of the above, it is evident that the plaintiffs
have not approached the Court with clean hands and that the present
suit appears to be filed in collusion with their son to unlawfully
dispossess the defendant from the matrimonial home. Therefore,
these issues are decided in favour of defendant.
ISSUE NO. 9
Relief.
73. In light of the foregoing discussion and upon
appreciation of the evidence and legal principles involved, this
Court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case.
Conversely, the defendant has successfully established her right of
residence in the suit property under the provisions of the Protection
Digitally signed
ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19
Page no. 28 of 33 17:04:33 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRA
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
74. Although, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit in the
form of a suit for mandatory injunction, asserting their status as
licensors. However, they have not sought the relief of recovery of
possession in their capacity as owners, possibly with the intention to
avoid the payment of appropriate court fees. Nevertheless, for the
effective adjudication of the present dispute and to do complete
justice between the parties, this Court proceeds to decide the issue
of possession as well.
75. This Court acknowledges the vulnerabilities of
plaintiffs and their right to peaceful enjoyment of their property.
Simultaneously, this court also recognize the paramount importance
of the DV Act in protecting women from domestic violence. The
right to reside in a shared household is a fundamental aspect of this
protection.
76. However, the quest for justice and the need for
balancing the rights of parties does not end here. It has always been
the endeavour of courts in such cases of dispute between the father-
in-law and the daughter-in-law, to balance the rights of both the
parties. Needless to say, that the courts have vehemently stressed on
the fact that workable solutions need to be found in such cases.
77. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Satish
Ahuja (supra) has observed that:-
“Before we close our discussion on Section
2(s), we need to observe that the right to Digitally signed
ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV
SHARMAPage no. 29 of 33 SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19
17:04:47 +0530(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRAresidence under Section 19 is not an
indefeasible right of residence in shared
household especially when the daughter-in-
law is pitted against aged father-in-law and
mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the
evening of their life are also entitled to live
peacefully not haunted by marital discord
between their son and daughter-in-law.
While granting relief both in application
under Section 12 of Act, 2005 or in any
civil proceedings, the Court has to balance
the rights of both the parties.”
78. At this juncture it is also pertinent to refer to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vinay
Varma v. Kanika Pasricha & Another 2019 SCC Online Del
11530, wherein the issue was regarding the interpretation and
balance between The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 and The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in this case laid
down guidelines for striking a balance between the two Acts, while
observing as follows “However, later decisions of various High
Courts have, while giving divergent opinions on the concept of
`shared household‟, followed one uniform pattern in order to protect
the daughter in-law and to provide for a dignified roof/shelter for
her. The question then arises as to whether the obligation of
providing the shelter or roof is upon the in-laws or upon the husband
of the daughter-in-law i.e., the son. Some broad guidelines as set out
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19
17:05:00Page no. 30 of 33 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRAbelow, can be followed by Courts in order to strike a balance
between the PSC Act and the DV Act:
i. The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the
relationship between the parties and the sons/ daughters
family.
ii. If the case involves eviction of a daughter in law, the court
has to also ascertain whether the daughter-in-law was living
as part of a joint family.
iii. If the relationship is acrimonious, then the parent ought to be
permitted to seek eviction of the son/daughter-in-law or
daughter/son in-law from their premises. In such
circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain the
wife would continue in terms of the principles under the DV
Act.
iv. If the relationship between the parents and the son are
peaceful or if the parent is seen colluding with their son, then,
an obligation to maintain and to provide for the shelter for
the daughter-in-law would remain both upon the in-laws and
the husband especially if they were living as part of a joint
family. In such a situation, while parents would be entitled to
seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from their property, an
alternative reasonable accommodation would have to be
provided to her.
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.04.19
17:05:30
+0530Page no. 31 of 33
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRAv. In case the son or his family is ill treating the parents then the
parents would be entitled to seek unconditional eviction from
their property so that they can live a peaceful life and also
put the property to use for their generating income and for
their own expenses for daily living.
vi. If the son has abandoned both the parents and his own
wife/children, then if the son’s family was living as part of a
joint family prior to the breakdown of relationships, the
parents would be entitled to seek possession from their
daughter-in-law, however, for a reasonable period they would
have to provide some shelter to the daughter in law during
which time she is able to seek her remedies against her
husband.”
79. In the present case, a cumulative reading of the
evidence reveals a prima facie element of collusion between the
plaintiffs and their son, aimed at securing the eviction of the
defendant from the suit property. It stands established that the suit
property constitutes a shared household, and the defendant has
successfully demonstrated her legal right to reside therein under the
Domestic Violence Act. It is also not disputed that the plaintiffs are
currently residing with their son.
80. In view of the foregoing, and keeping in mind the
necessity of balancing the rights and interests of both parties, this
Court, in line with the principles laid down in Vinay Varma v.
Digitally signed
by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.19
Page no. 32 of 33 17:05:37 +0530(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi
CS SCJ 1244/17
SMT. ROOP MISRA AND ANR VS. NIDHI MISRAKanika Pasricha & Anr. (supra), deems it appropriate to direct the
following directions:
(i) The plaintiffs and their son, Mr. Anubhav Misra, shall jointly
and severally arrange for alternative accommodation for the
defendant, consisting of at least two rooms, a kitchen, and a
bathroom, situated in the same locality as the suit property.
(ii) The rent for such accommodation shall jointly and severally
be borne by the plaintiffs and their son and shall be deposited
directly into the bank account of the defendant on or before the
10th day of each calendar month.
(iii) Upon the commencement of the rent payments as specified
above, the defendant shall vacate the suit property within a period
of three months from the date of the first such deposit.
81. There shall be no order as to costs.
82. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly, subject to
the payment of appropriate court fees by the plaintiffs in respect of
the relief of recovery of possession of the suit property.
83. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
Pronounced in open court: by ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
Dated: 19.04.2025 2025.04.19
17:05:43 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01(South)Saket/New Delhi/19.04.2025
Note: -This judgment contains thirty three pages and all the pages
Digitally signed
have been checked and signed by me. ANUBHAV
SHARMA
by ANUBHAV
SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.19
17:05:48 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01(South)Saket/New Delhi/19.04.2025 Digitally signed by
ANUBHAV ANUBHAV
Page no. 33 of 33
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.04.19
17:05:54 +0530
(Anubhav Sharma)
CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi