MIL, SIL can file DV aganist DIL ---

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS

JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

Crl. Revision No. 367/2010

1. Santosh Kaur

W/o Sh. Mohan Lal Kashyap

R/o 6-D, Janta Flats, Satyawati Colony,

Behind Laxmi Bai College,

Ashok Vihar, Phase-III,

Delhi.

2. Ms. Ritu Kashyap

D/o Sh. Mohan Lal Kashyap

R/o 6-D, Janta Flats, Satyawati Colony,

Behind Laxmi Bai College,

Ashok Vihar, Phase-III,

Delhi.

3. Mrs. Sarika Mehta

W/o Sh. Kamal Mehta

R/o F-8, 2nd Floor,

Kamla Nagar,

Delhi

............ Revisionists

Versus

Smt. Nidhi Kashyap

W/o Sh. Gaurav Kashyap

D/o Sh. K.C. Ahuja

R/o C-4/428, Lawrence Road,

Delhi . 110035

............ Respondent

Date of institution: 29.5.2010

Arguments heard on: 16.8.2010

Date of Decision: 28.8.2010

ORDER:

This revision has been filed against the summoning

orders dated 24.2.2010, 25.3.2010 and 23.4.2010 passed by the

Ld. Trial Court in the petition filed by the respondent Nidhi

Kashyap under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The revisionist no.1 Smt.

Santosh Kaur is the mother-in-law of the respondent whereas the

revisionist no.2 Ms. Ritu Kashyap is her unmarried sister-in-law

(Nanand) and respondent no.3 Mrs. Sarika Mehta is her married

sister-in-law (Nanand).

Briefly the case of the respondent Nidhi Kashyap/

applicant before the Trial Court is that she was the class mate of

revisionist no.2 Ritu Kashyap who is the real sister of Gaurav

Kashyap (respondent no.1 before the Ld. Trial Court) and had

friendly relations with him. According to Nidhi Kashyap, her

father is a property dealer and mother is a bank employee and

they have strong a financial background. It is pleaded that they

are only two sisters and therefore as a part of well planned

conspiracy, the revisionists before this court induced her to enter

into a matrimonial relationship with Gaurav Kashyap despite the

fact that both belonged to different communities. According to

the respondent, her marriage with Gaurav Kashyap was

solemnized secretly on 29.7.2008 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Birla

Line, Kamla Nagar, Delhi according to Hindu rites and

ceremonies after which she left for her parental home as she was

asked to disclose the factum of her marriage to them only after

45 days. It is further pleaded by Nidhi Kashyap that on

12.9.2008 when she entered into her matrimonial home at 6-D,

Janta Flats, Satyawati Colony, behind Laxmi Bai College, Ashok

Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi the revisionists before this court, under a

well planned design conspiracy and in a pre planned manner,

called her parents at their home and disclosed the factum of the

marriage of their son with the present respondent (Nidhi

Kashyap) on which her parents received a serious shock but

finding no alternative they ultimately gave their consent and

approval to the matrimonial ties and on 12.10.2008 as per the

demands of her in-laws, her parents organized a joint reception

where they gave a large amount of gold and jewellery and

domestic articles and cash to her. According to Nidhi Kashyap,

the respondent before this court court, the revisionists are in

domestic relationship with her due to her matrimonial

relationship with Gaurav Kashyap (respondent no. 1 before the

Ld. Trial Court). She has alleged that on 13.10.2008 after she

entered into her matrimonial home, her Nanand the revisionist

no.2 Ritu Kashyap raised a demand of Hundai i10 car and it was

made clear to her that in case if she wants to live peacefully she

would have to ask her parents to satisfy their demands. Again on

13.10.2008, her mother-in-law Smt. Santosh Kashyap the

revisionist no.1 before this court took a sum of Rs.20,000/- from

her purse against her will and consent and in the evening the

revisionists no.2 and 3 took away entire gold and diamond

jewelleries except one Mangal Sutra, one gold ring, nose pin

and ear rings and thereafter did not return the same to her despite

her repeated requests and demands. The present respondent

Nidhi Kashyap has also mentioned numerous other occasions

alleging that the revisionists before this court had been

disclosing their intent and expectations for cash and other

articles from time to time and she had been subjected to

harassment, torture and violence on account of the repeated

dowry demands made by the revisionists before this court

including her married sister-in-law Sarika Mehta. According to

Nidhi Kashyap, her entire jewellery is lying with her in-laws. A

petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by

Gaurav Kashyap the husband of the present respondent is also

pending adjudication before the Ld. ADJ, Rohini. She has

alleged that she has been compelled to make a complaint before

the Crime Against Women Cell, Pitam Pura, Delhi on account of

the callous conduct on the part of her in-laws including the

present revisionists. She has further alleged that her husband

Gaurav Kashyap is the owner of property bearing no. 6-D, Janta

Flats, Satyawati Colony, Behind Laxmi Bai College, Ashok

Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi and he and his parents are owning and

possessing 100 sq. plot as Samaipur Badli, Delhi. Further, she

has alleged that her husband Gaurav Kashyap and his parents are

owning and possessing the HIG Flat in TDI Sonepat having a

market value to the tune of Rs.22 lacs and are running a factory

under the name and style of MCO Chemical, Samaypur, Delhi

and are owning and possessing two godowns at Samaypur and

Swaroop Nagar and her husband Gaurav Kashyap is having one

house at Sri Nagar, Bharat Nagar, Delhi. It is also alleged by the

respondent before this court that her husband and his parents are

owning and possessing a Maruti 800 car bearing no. DL-6019

and are also owning a truck Tata-407 and two victor bikes. She

has now demanded that her husband Gaurav Kashyap i.e. the

respondent no.1 before the Ld. Trial Court is under a legal

obligation to maintain her and she requires independent

residential accommodation which is available at the rental value

of Rs.10,000/- per month excluding the water and electricity

charges and also requires Rs.30,000/- per month for her

maintenance and Rs. 5 lacs on account of mental torture, pain

and agony suffered by her. According to the present respondent

she cannot remain dependent upon her parents for her shelter and

therefore, her husband Gaurav Kashyap is required to make the

arrangements for separate residential accommodation. In her

petition, the present respondent Nidhi Kashyap has further

demanded that her husband and her in-laws including the present

revisionists should be restrained from entering into her parental

home and from making any kind of communication to her and

from committing any act of Domestic Violence and aiding or

abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence.

Further, she has demanded that they be restrained from

alienating and parting with her istridhan articles and also from

creating any third part interest and parting with the possession of

the property bearing No. D-6, Janta Flats, Satyawati Colony,

Behind Laxmi Bai College, Ashok Vihar, Delhi and property

bearing no. 77, Bharat Nagar Delhi till her husband make the

provisions for her independent residential accommodation. She

has also claimed Rs.3,000/- from her in-laws including the

present revisionists as litigation expenses.

Pursuant to the aforesaid petition, the Ld. Trial Court

sought a Domestic Incident Report from the Protection Officer.

The said report was duly filed which I have duly perused. The

said report clearly reflects that Smt. Sarika Mehta the revisionist

no.3 before this court is not a member of the shared household

and is separately residing at her matrimonial home residing at F-

8, 2nd Floor, Kamla Nagar, Delhi with her husband Sh. Kamal

Mehta whereas Smt. Santosh Kaur the mother-in-law and Ritu

Kashyap the unmarried sister-in-law are all residing at 6-D, Janta

Flats, Satyawati Colony, Behind Laxmi Bai College, Delhi. The

report further shows that only one incident of domestic violence

on 3.7.2009 by the husband has been reported on which day the

present respondent was beaten by her husband and was asked to

leave the house. The report further reflects that the only incident

of verbal and emotional abuse are of insults for not having

brought dowry, demeaning, humiliating, undermining, ridicule

and name calling by her husband and her in-laws and preventing

her from meeting a particular person. She has also alleged

economic violence upon her by her husband by not providing her

money, food, clothes, medicine etc. and forcing her out of the

matrimonial house and has alleged that her in-laws including the

present revisionists have disposed off her istridhan articles by

selling or pawing the same without her consent and forcibly

taken away her salary, income or wages etc.

The revisionists before this court have alleged that

the orders of summoning are also bad as they have been passed

without calling upon the respondent to furnish and establish the

material facts necessitated for passing such orders. It is

submitted that no domestic violence has ever been committed by

the revisionists upon the respondent before this court

(complainant before the Ld. Trial Court) and the petitioner under

the Domestic Violence Act has been filed on false and frivolous

grounds and the complaint filed by the present respondents

against them before Crime Against Women Cell, Pitam Pura has

been filed only to harass, humiliate and to extort money from

them. The revisionists have pointed out that the marriage of

Gaurav Kashyap with the present respondent was a simple one

without any demand and was an outcome of the love affair.

They have pointed out that the parents of the present respondent

were against her marriage and therefore, they secretly got

married without informing their family members at Arya Samaj

Mandir which was a dowry less marriage and the respondent had

come in wearing clothes and it is in this background that the

parents of Gaurav Kashyap including the revisionists organized a

reception on 12.10.2008 at Janak Vatika, Bharat Nagar. The

revisionists have further pointed out that on 3.7.2009 the present

respondent Nidhi Kashyap picked up a quarrel with her husband

Gaurav Kashyap and called her father with 5-6 other people who

beaten up Gaurav Kashyap and even shouted on road and use

abusive language for Gaurav Kashyap. Thereafter the present

respondent went to her parent's house by saying that she would

not live nor would maintain any relations with them and Gaurav

Kashyap made umpteen efforts to bring her back but she refused.

According to the revisionists they are themselves aggrieved and

victim of the violence inflicted upon them by the present

respondent. It is further stated that all the properties mentioned

by the present respondent does not belong to the husband of the

respondent. The revisionists have placed their reliance on the

following authorities:

1. S.R. Batra & Anr. vs. Smt. Taruna Batra reported in 1

(2007) SLT 1.

2. Shumita Didi Sandhu Vs. Sanjay Singh Sandhu reported

in 2007 (96) DRJ 697.

3. Mohd. Maqeenuddin Ahmed & Ors. Vs. The State of

Andhra Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2008 (1) JCC 85.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 is a special legislation in favour of women. It is the

duty of the court to ensure that this special legislation reaches

out to the effected lot but at the same time is not allowed to be

misused by anyone.

Wikipedia defines domestic relationship between

two individuals as a legal or personal relationship to live

together or share one domestic life but are neither joined by

marriage nor the civil union.

The Indian law i.e. Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not define family but it

defines Domestic Relationship between two persons who live or

have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household,

when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a

relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family

members living together as a joint family. Domestic relations

are meant to cover sisters, widows, mothers and daughters and

single women. The Indian law does not specify separate

relationship and mentions members in a joint family.

The intent of Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 is to protect the value system and institution

of family and save it from destruction. This being so, the

provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 have to be so interpreted to ensure that the existing

family system is preserved. The misuse and abuse of the Act is a

matter of serious concern for the courts who are required to be

careful and ensure that a woman petitioner is not made a puppet

or pawn in the hands of her male relatives so as to manipulate

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

and use it for ulterior motives.

In the present case it is an admitted case of the parties

before this court that the respondent Nidhi Kashyap who is the

wife of Gaurav Kashyap (respondent no.1 before the Ld. Trial

Court) has filed the complaint under special legislation

(Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005)

wherein she has spared none and roped the entire family

including the young unmarried sister-in-law who was her friend

and class-mate even before her marriage and also her married

sister-in-law who is residing separately with her own family. It

is admitted that the marriage between the present respondent

Nidhi Kashyap with Gaurav Kashyap was solemnized secretly

and was an outcome of a love affair as Nidhi Kashyap was

known to Gaurav Kashyap through the revisionist no.2 Ritu

Kashyap who was the batch mate of Nidhi Kashyap and was

studying with her. It is also an admitted case of the parties that

on having come to know of marriage a reception had been

organized after which the present respondent Nidhi Kashyap

started staying with her husband and her in-laws. It appears that

unfortunately the said marriage is not worked out resulting into

spade of litigation between the parties and Gaurav Kashyap even

filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage act

which is still pending adjudication and the present respondent

Nidhi Kashyap has filed a case in Crime Against Women Cell

alleging dowry demands and harassment against one and all.

The provisions of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have been invoked by the

respondent Nidhi Kashyap not only against her husband Gaurav

Kashyap but also against her aged father-in-law Mohan Lal

Kashyap (respondent no.2 before the Ld. Trial Court), motherin-

law Smt. Santosh Kaur (present revisionist no.1 before this

court), unmarried sister Ritu Kashyap (revisionist no.2 before

this court with whom Nidhi Kashyap was previously studying

and through whom she came to know Gaurav Kashyap and had a

love affair), married sister Smt. Sarika Mehta and her husband

Sh. Kamal Mehta who both are residing at F-8, 2nd Floor, Kala

Nagar, Delhi.

At the very outset I may observe that merely because

the revisionist no.3 Smt. Sarika Mehta happen to be the real

sister of the husband of present respondent would not ipso-facto

imply a domestic relationship to the extent as contemplated

under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 as she is residing separately with her own husband and

cannot be deemed to be a member of the shared household as a

joint family. The revisionist no.2 Ritu Kashyap is a young girl

of 22 years who had been the classmate of the present

respondent and through whom the present respondent had came

into contact with Gaurav Kashyap and had an affair culminating

into the marriage. The revisionist no.1 is the aged mother-in-law.

The allegations against her are general and non specific.

Daughters married or unmarried cannot be terrorized

into abandoning their parental family under the fear of their

involvement into litigations connected with Domestic Violence.

Married sisters residing in their own matrimonial houses are not

a part of the shared household or joint family as contemplated

under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 but at the same time they have certain rights in their

parental home which cannot be denied to them. Even an

unmarried sister of the husband residing in the shared household

with her parents has certain rights which cannot be taken away.

Making wild allegations against an unmarried sister-in-law of a

tender marriageable age by an estranged wife of brother

tentamounts to inflicting violence upon her and it is the duty of

the court to ensure that she is protected from the same. Violence

can also be inflicted by an estranged wife or daughter-in- law or

sister-in-law upon other members of the husband's family to gain

and secure personal points and financial control or for separating

her husband from his parents and other family members. In the

zeal and endeavour to implement the rights of one woman

(daughter-in- law) it is necessary for the courts to ensure that the

rights of another woman (in her capacity as mother-in-law or

sister-in-law married or unmarried) are not taken away or

infringed in any manner. The Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 protects the mothers, sisters and

daughters from any kind of physical and mental abuse or

violence in as much as it does the daughter-in- law. The court as

a protector and implementor of rights, is required to perform a

balancing act. It is necessary to ensure that it does not get

swayed by the astute legal drafting of the counsels and is

required to get at the truth of the allegations by examining the

pleadings on the touch-stone of reasonableness and probabilities.

Where a complaint appears to have been filed on filmsy grounds

only to humiliate the family members, the same is required to be

thrown out at the earliest opportunity. Mother-in-law or sister'sin-

law (married or unmarried) cannot be permitted to be

subjected to harassment only because they happen to be related

to the estranged husband of the woman (complainant) .

In the present case firstly I have considered the

allegations reflected in the Domestic Incidence Report and the

allegations so made by the complainant Nidhi Kashyap before

the court which do not inspire confidence and appears to have

been made in routine. The respondent has alleged that the

present revisionists had forcibly taken away her salary and

wages which allegations on the face of it are false and incorrect

since it is an admitted case of the respondent before this court

that she is not working. The question of her husband or in-laws

taking away her salary, income, wages etc. under these

circumstances does not arise.

Secondly the report of the Protection Officer also

show that the dowry related harassment pertains to the demand

of car and cash of Rs.3 lacs. The respondent Nidhi Kashyap has

also attached the list of Stridhan articles alongwith the petition to

support and substantiate her allegations regarding

misappropriation of her Stridhan articles which I have perused. I

may observe that the said list so attached along with the petition

is not a duly authenticated list signed by both the parties as

required under the Dowry Prohibition Act. This is the list of

articles which only the respondent Nidhi Kashyap claims were

her stridhan which list does not bear the signatures of the

respondent. Under the given circumstances as the list is not

signed by both parties, it was necessary for the complainant

Nidhi Kashyap to have attached alongwith her list the receipts/

bills showing purchase of these articles which has not been done.

Therefore, the above allegations also do not appear to be credible

and truth-full particularly keeping in view the background that

the marriage between the respondent and Gaurav Kashyap was a

secret, runaway marriage as an outcome of a love affair which

marriage was kept secret for many days and ultimately when the

same was disclosed to the parents of the respondent by her inlaws

a joint reception was organized.

Thirdly the present respondent Nidhi Kashyap has

not placed on record any document to show that her husband is

the owner of any of the aforesaid properties or have any

independent right over the same. The allegations are non

specific and general. It is settled law that the claim for

alternative accommodation can only be made by a women

against her husband and not against in-laws or other

relatives nor can she claim any right to stay in the said house

(Ref: S.R. Batra & Anr. Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra reported in 1

(2007) SLT 1 and Shumita Didi Sandhu Vs. Sanjay Singh

Sandhu reported in 2007 (96) DRJ 697). The present

respondent has not placed on record any document to show that

the properties in the present case belonging to her husband

Gaurav Kashyap and the complaint in Crime Against Women

Cell.

Lastly it is an admitted case of the parties including

that of the complainant Nidhi Kashyap that her marriage with

Gaurav Kashyap is an outcome of the long standing love affair

between them. She was a classmate of the revisionist no.2 Ritu

Kashyap through whom she was introduced to Gaurav Kashyap

(her real brother) with whom she developed love affair

culminating into a secret marriage which was disclosed to her

parents much later. This being the background of the case, the

allegations made by the complainant against one and all family

members of her husband where none have been spared do not

appear probable. It is apparent on the face of the pleadings that

they have been so drafted so as to involved all the family

members of the husband sparing none including the present

revisionists who are the aged mother-in-law, unmarried sister-inlaw

of marriageable age and married sister-in-law residing

separately. This, it appears has been done for the purpose of

harassing the entire family of the husband with a sinister motive

and design to harass and humiliate them. Given the background

of the case, the allegations made against the Revisionists on the

face of it do not appear to be truthful and probable warranting

any interference from the court under this Special Legislation.

In view of the above background and in the interest

of justice, I hereby set aside the orders of dated 24.2.2010,

25.3.2010 and 23.4.2010 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby

summoning the present revisionists i.e. Smt. Santosh Kaur, Ms.

Ritu Kashyap and Smt. Sarika Mehta since there does not exist

sufficient material on record to summon them and to proceed

against them under the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005.

Revision is accordingly allowed. Trial court record

be sent back along with the copy of this order. Revision file be

consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)

Dated: 28.8.2010 ASJ-II(NW): Rohini

Santosh Kaur Vs. Nidhi Kashyap

CR No. 367/2010

28.8.2010

Present: None for the Revisionists.

None for the respondent.

Vide my separate detailed order dictated and

announced in the open court, I set aside the orders of dated

24.2.2010, 25.3.2010 and 23.4.2010 passed by the Ld. Trial

Court thereby summoning the present revisionists i.e. Smt.

Santosh Kaur, Ms. Ritu Kashyap and Smt. Sarika Mehta since

there does not exist sufficient material on record to summon

them and to proceed against them under the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Revision is accordingly allowed. Trial court record

be sent back along with the copy of this order. Revision file be

consigned to Record Room.

(Dr. Kamini Lau)

ASJ-II (NW)/ 28.8.2010