4/4/24, 9:43 PM Anita vs Sh.

Ritu Raj Kant on 12 December, 2011

Anita vs Sh. Ritu Raj Kant on 12 December, 2011

1

IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

(MAHILA COURT): DWARKA, NEW DELHI

CC no. 1983/07

Anita
W/o Sh. Ritu Raj Kant
R/o C/o Sh. Deepak
RZ­
3/233, West Sagarpur,
New Delhi ........... Applicant

Versus
1. Sh. Ritu Raj Kant
S/o Sh. Lal Singh

2. Sh. Lal Singh

S/o Sh. Sujan Singh

3. Smt. Prakash wati

W/o Sh. Lal Singh

4. Smt. Kamlesh
D/o Sh. Lal Singh

5. Sh. Mahar See

S/o Sh. Lal Singh

All R/o RZ­

F3
­5, West Sagar Pur,
Delhi ......Respondents.

Date on which case reserved for judgment :21.11.2011 Date of judgment : 12.12.2011 Judgment:

Anita Vs Ritu Raj

1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose of an application 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(hereinafter called the Act) filed by the Applicant Smt. Anita (hereinafter called the Applicant) against Ritu Raj Kant
(hereinafter called the Respondent no.1), Lal Singh (hereinafter called the Respondent no.2), Smt. Prakash (hereinafter
called the Respondent no.

3) and Smt. Kamlesh (hereinafter called Respondent no. 4) and Mehar See (hereinafter called Respondent no. 5).

2. Notice of the Application was sent to the Respondent no. 1 to 4 and filed their reply.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the application as mentioned by the Applicant in her petition that her marriage
was solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir, Meerut, UP on 18.11.2000 and the same was duly registered with the Registrar of
Marriage. She has averred that she was a divorcee prior to this marriage and as such, her son from the prior marriage also
started residing with her and her husband i.e. Respondent no. 1 after marriage. She has averred that she was taunted for not
bringing sufficient dowry and was harassed by parents of the Respondent no. 1 on various occasions. She was also harassed on
account of presence of the child from her first marriage in the company of Respondent no. 1, her then husband who could not
accept her son. She has averred that she alongwith Respondent no. 1 had purchased 52 square yards of plot bearing no. 35/2 i.e.
Portion of plot no. 35, out of 104 sq. yds, out of khasra no. 33/4 situated in the area of village Dabri West Sagar Pur, Block F,
Delhi, from the mother of Respondent no. 1 who had executed registered Power of Attorney in their favour where they started
residing after which on 19.01.2002, applicant as well as Respondent no. 1, Anita Vs Ritu Raj executed the documents
pertaining to 52 Sq.yds of property bearing no. 35/2 Block F, West Sagar Pur, New Delhi by executing the documents viz
G.P.A., Agreement to Sell, Affidavits, Possession Letter, Receipt, Will etc. to her own parents at the instance of the Respondent
no. 1 who was in a dire need of money. She has further averred that she was kicked out from the premises alongwith her son
forcibly by the parents of the Respondent no. 1, his brother and sister, after which she was forced to compel to reside in a rental
accommodation at RZ­3/233 West Sagar Pur, Delhi. She has further averred that she was mentally tortured and harassed by the
Respondent no. 1 and his parents from March 2005 to November 2005, when she was finally kicked from the premises.
Subsequently happened the incident of 15.03.205, when she was beaten by the Respondent no. 1. A civil case was later filed
before the Civil Judge, Delhi qua the dispute of the property bearing no. RZ 35­F, West Sagarpur.

4. Applicant by way of the present petition has sought the relief u/s 18 seeking restraint upon the respondents from selling,
alienating or transferring the possession of the property bearing no. RZ F­35/2 West Sagar Pur, Delhi qua further prayer that
possession of the said property be restored to her from the respondents and his family members on the conditions as it was
prior to November 2005 with all Istridhan and her belongings, dowry items etc. She has sought restraint upon the Respondent
no. 1 and his family members who are respondent no. 2 to 5 in this matter, from dispossessing the applicant and his son in

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10801999/ 1/4
4/4/24, 9:43 PM Anita vs Sh. Ritu Raj Kant on 12 December, 2011
future from the said property or from creating any encumbrances in the said property. She has also sought mandatory relief u/s
20 of the Act, compensation on account of mental and physical pain and agony in the sum Anita Vs Ritu Raj of Rs. Two Lacs,
litigation charges in the sum of Rs. 35,000/­and other reliefs as admissible u/s 22 and 23 of the Act.

5. The factum of the marriage solemnized on 18.11.2000 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Meerut UP as well as registration of the
marriage on 01.02.2001 has been admitted as part of the reply on behalf of the respondent no. 1. In the reply, it has been
submitted that she had misrepresented herself to be a constable in Delhi Police whereas she was found to be only employed as
Home Guard with Delhi Police. It is further submitted that applicant had forced Respondent no. 1 and Respondent no. 2 to
transfer a part of house bearing no. RZF­35 by Deed, Power of Attorney and Will duly in the name of Respondent no. 1 and
Applicant, which was later cancelled by the Cancellation Deed dated 22.08.2003 by the Respondent no. 3 who is the absolutely
owner of the property as per his submissions. It is further submitted that the applicant got married to one Sh. Brijesh Singh
Sisodia and then contracted second marriage with Sh. Brij Pal without seeking divorce from her first husband and got married
with the Respondent no. 1 without seeking divorce from the second husband and this factum of prior marriages were not
disclosed to Respondent no. 1 before the marriage.

6. Respondent no. 2 who is father of the respondent no. 1 has submitted that after getting the retirement benefits he got
purchased the house bearing no. RZF­35, Dayal Park, in the joint name of the applicant and the Respondent no. 1 in year March
2004, which applicant got transferred in her own sole name and later sold the same in the month of November 2005, keeping
all the money with herself qua which a civil suit has been filed by the Respondent no. 1 and 3. He has also submitted that
property bearing no. Anita Vs Ritu Raj RZ­35 was purchased by the Respondent no. 2 in the name of Respondent no. 3 and as
such respondents have been living in the said property since 1979.

7. Applicant has filed the rejoinder in which she denied all the allegations made by the respondents.

8. Respondent were ordered neither to dispose of the property bearing no. RZF­35, West Sagar Pur, New Delhi nor to create any
third party interest therein till final decision on the application on merit by the court. An application u/s 31 of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 which was dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2011. The matter was then listed for
evidence.

9. Applicant has affirmed in her examination in chief as stated on Oath as part of her examination in chief that she had got
married on 18.11.2000 at Arya Samaj Mandir after which on 01.12.2000, she got married in Merrut Court with Respondent no.
1 after which they had come to Delhi and resided at RZF­35, West Sagarpur, Delhi, for around 3­4 months alongwith all the
respondents. She further stated that there was some unnecessary scuffle in matrimonial home meted by sister in law and brother
in law because of which her husband had proposed to shift elsewhere and accordingly they shifted to a rented accommodation
in Sagar Pur where they resided for 4­5 months after which a flat in the joint name of herself and her husband/respondent no. 1
was purchased worth Rs. 3.5 lacs i.e. flat no. 230/10, Sagar Pur, Dayal Park, Delhi , where she alongwith Respondent no. 1
resided for about one year. She further stated that the Respondent no. 1 used to stay at home giving home tuition whereas she
was employed with Home Guard, Delhi Police. She Anita Vs Ritu Raj further stated that her husband had developed intimate
relationship with Neha and later eloped with her about which she had lodged a report in police station . She further affirmed
that an apology letter was written by Respondent no. 1 in police station that he would not repeat such kind of act and she
further stated that Respondent no. 1 had transferred the ownership of flat solely in her name and later made her sell that flat
keeping the proceeds in his possession, after which he left Delhi on the pretext of attending a marriage and did not return back
for four days or so. She further stated that she went to the house where her in laws resided that is house bearing no. FZF­35,
Ashok Park where her husband was present qua which also , a report was lodged in police station. She has not been residing
with her husband or any of her in laws. She has also further stated that house bearing no. RZ­35 has also been sold by her
husband and as such she has been falsely implicated in litigation of forgery and cheating. She has been been extensively cross
examined by the counsel for the respondents.

10. In cross examination by the counsel for the respondent, CW­1 Anita stated that she was taken to Meerut by force although
she did not report anywhere about it. She admitted that the Respondent no. 3 had executed the documents of the flat bearing no.
RZF­35 in her favour and that of her husband. She stated that she alongwith her husband had shifted to a new accommodation
after 5­6 months of the marriage. She stated that the property bearing no. RZ­10/230/35 Dayal Park, West Sagar Pur, Delhi, was
purchased from Krishna Devi in the joint name of herself and her husband which was later transferred into her name by her
husband and eventually sold to one Sh. Mahender Singh. She stated that she has filed a civil suit Anita Vs Ritu Raj regarding
property no. RZF­35, West Sagarpur, Delhi in Tis Hazari as the respondents were trying to dispose of the said property. She
further stated that she left the service of home guard in the year 2002 and she visits Delhi only for the court case.

11. Respondent in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A on record in which he has affirmed that marriage was
solemnized between him and the Applicant on 18.11.2000 at Arya Samaj Mandir and same was a simple dowry less marriage
where the parents of the Applicant did not participate. He further affirmed that Applicant had concealed the fact of her earlier
marriages and had furnished a false affidavit stating herself to be unmarried whereas infact she was already married twice and
had not sought divorce from her previous husbands. He further affirmed that his father gave Rs. 4, 55,000/­ through cheque
bearing no. 34942 drawn on Bank of India and Rs. 1,50,000/­ in cash to the Applicant and Respondent and a house bearing no.
RZ­230­35, Dayal Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi which was purchased in the joint name of Respondent no. 1 and the
Applicant. He further affirmed that applicant deliberately got property bearing no. RZ­230­35, Dayal Park, West Sagarpur, New
Delhi transferred in her own name and later kicked him out, taking full control of the house with the help of her parents and

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10801999/ 2/4
4/4/24, 9:43 PM Anita vs Sh. Ritu Raj Kant on 12 December, 2011
brothers and later, even sold the said house for Rs. Eight Lakhs and kept all the money with herself. He further affirmed that he
has been rendered homeless and jobless by the cruel acts of the Applicant.

12. In cross examination by the counsel for the Applicant, he stated that no dowry was taken by him from the Applicant at the
time of marriage and the Applicant had concealed the factum of earlier marriages. He stated that Applicant Anita Vs Ritu Raj
solemnized her first marriage with Sh. Brijest Singh Sisodia and second marriage with Sh. Brij Pal Singh. He further stated that
house measuring 104 Sq. Yards bearing no. RZF­35, West Sagarpur, New Delhi is in the name of his mother and as such , he
does not have any share in this property. He further stated that he and his wife were disowned and disentitled from the said
property of his mother. He further stated that his mother had executed GPA and Will in favour of the complainant and
Respondent no. 1 for half of property which was subsequently cancelled and later, they were asked to vacate the property by
his mother after which, he alongwith applicant resided in rental accommodation in Dayal Park for about 1 ½ year. He further
stated that 78 Sq.yards out of the property bearing no. RZF35, has been sold by his mother and that remaining 26 sq. yards
were kept by his mother from which his parents has been forcibly dispossessed by the police and subsequently, the property has
been sold out by Applicant. He further stated that the Applicant was never beaten by the parents and other family members. He
further stated that he has been residing separately from the Applicant since the end of 2005. He further stated that property
bearing no. 230­35 was purchased by his father in the joint name of Applicant and Respondent no. 1 in July 2004. He further
stated that Applicant had informed him that she was employed in Delhi Police but later it was found that she was only a Home
Guard. He declined the suggestion that he has any share in property no. RZF­35, West Sagar Pur, Delhi.

13. Final arguments have been advanced by the counsels for both the parties.

14. I have carefully perused the case record.

15. The premise of entire case revolves in Applicant proving herself to be an Anita Vs Ritu Raj Aggrieved Person u/s 2(a) of
the Act entitling herself for the protection and accrual of certain rights and benefits under the aegis of Act.

16. The marriage of Applicant with Respondent no. 1 was solemnized in the year 2000. Present case was filed by Applicant in
the year 2007. Applicant admittedly has been residing separately from Respondent no. 1 who is her husband and necessarily
from other respondents since 2002. So both husband and wife remained in each other's company, that is resided together in
domesticity, if at all, for not more than two years. Admittedly, Applicant resided at RZF­35, West Sagarpur, Delhi with all
Respondents, that is with her in laws just for around 3­4 months of marriage after which as deposed by herself in her
examination in chief, she shifted to a rental accommodation alongwith Respondent no. 1 whereas remaining Respondents
continued to reside, as it is, in the same property. This is to say as apparent on the face of it that any residence in a shared space
with Respondents other than Respondent no. 1 was of a duration not more than 3­4 months. Applicant has not testified about
even a single allegation against Respondents other than Respondent no. 1 all this while, there are no complaints of this period
either Respondents other than Respondent no. 1 absolutely, thus share no responsibility or liability towards fro the Applicant.
All the Respondents other than Respondent no. 1 are accordingly discharged.

17. Now coming to role and domain of Respondent no. 1. Applicant in her entire testimony has nowhere pointed out even a
single instance where Respondent no. 1 has meted any physical or mental harassment against her. Applicant has deposed that
Respondent no. 1 eloped with 17 years old neighbourer and she had got a report lodged regarding this at Police Station Dabri.
She has Anita Vs Ritu Raj not proved or produced any such report. The apology letter which Respondent no. 1 allegedly had
written has also not been produced on record. Thus, Applicant has failed to prove that Respondent no. l in fact had eloped with
his neighbourer during subsistence of marriage which, if proved, could be a cause of grave mental and emotional harassment
by Respondent no. 1 upon Applicant.

18. It also appears very strange , going strictly as per version of Applicant that due to pressure of family of Respondent no. 1, a
renounced his co­ownership in the property, then compelled Applicant to sell off that flat and kept the proceeds to himself and
removed himself from company of Applicant. The entire set of allegation look very bizarre and absurd. It would have been
better and easier and convenient to sell off a flat which being in co­ownership than in sole ownership. Further, it probably
reflects good faith of Respondent no. 1 and his trust over Applicant that he renounced his ownership on the flat jointly
purchased by himself and Applicant.

19. As to when the property was sold, which all documents were executed, how the money was received, for what
consideration was it sold and why after purchase, in just a few months, it was necessary to sell the same off, how the
consideration reached hands of Respondent no. 1, was Respondent no. 1 ever taken in to confidence at the time of sale of
property as Respondent no. 1 was not the owner of the flat at the time of sale of flat/premises. It appears to be a non credible
blatant allegation with absolutely no substantiation about it on record. Thus, the Applicant has again failed to prove even this
allegation.

20. It is unclear as to how and why both deserted each other's company. The version of Applicant does not inspire confidence
lacking convincingness and Anita Vs Ritu Raj coherence. The entire complaint is just revolving around share in property RZF­‐
35 Sagar Pur. IT is really not about a wife wanting to be with her husband or his in laws. Infact what has been stated in petition
is in dire difference with what has been testified about. There is a deliberate mixing of events by learned Advocates so as to
produce a fragmented motivated half baked picture to get the quick desired results. Infact, written arguments filed present yet
another differing picture. There is only one common threat, the burning desire to get share in the property.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10801999/ 3/4
4/4/24, 9:43 PM Anita vs Sh. Ritu Raj Kant on 12 December, 2011
21. This Court is not to adjudicate upon the property rights of Applicant. The rightful claim/share of Respondent no. 1 in the
property RZF­35 West Sagar Pur has not been proved in the Application by Applicant. Applicant highlighted two instances
where allegedly she was wronged but she failed prove even one of them. Her crumbling testimony has fatally shattered her
credibility. Applicant miserably has failed to prove any violence in any form having been suffered at the hands of Respondent
no. 1 while being in domesticity, with him as his wife. This is a classic example of chance litigation where litigant using the
professional expertise of Advocates has abused the provisions of this salutary beneficial legislation to extract and fulfill own ill
interest, continuously harassing the opposite party clinching upon precious time of Court which could not delve in to more
genuine cases at the cost of this necessarily a frivolous litigation.

22. With the observations given above, present petition u/s 12 of D.V. Act filed by Applicant Anita stands dismissed with cost
of Rs. 3000/­in period of two months to be deposited by Applicant in DLSA.

23. Copy of this order be given Dasti to counsel for Applicant as well as Anita Vs Ritu Raj Respondent. Copy of this order be
also given to Protection Officer and be also sent to SHO concerned for effective compliance.

(Announced in the open (Shelly Arora)

court on 12.12.2011) MM(Mahila Court)
Dwarka: N.Delhi

Anita Vs Ritu Raj

Anita Vs Ritu Raj Kant.

12.12.2011
Present: Applicant with counsel.
Respondent with counsel.

Vide my separate judgment, dictated and announced in the open court today, Application u/s 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the Applicant is dismissed with cost of Rs. 3000/- to be deposited by Applicant in
DLSA.

File be consigned to the record room.

(Shelly Arora) MM(Mahila Court) Dwk: 12.12.2011 Anita Vs Ritu Raj

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10801999/ 4/4