MEENA CHAUDHARYversusCOMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE AND ORS.

•                    [2014] 11 S.C.R. 507

                    MEENA CHAUDHARY                                A
                                v.
      COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE AND ORS.
         (Civil Appeal Nos. 8439-8440 of 2009)
                    SEPTEMBER 18, 2014
                                                                   B
     [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
              SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]

        Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
  - ss.12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 - Suit filed by appellant for C
  protection of share in the matrimonial household and interim
  maintenance - During pendency of the suit, appellant filed
  writ petition - High Court in its writ jurisdiction declined to
  examine the disputed questions of fact as regards the claim
 1
  of appellant about thl§Subsisting nature of her married life with D
  respondent no.4, but directed him to pay interim maintenance
  to the appellant - Held: Unless and until the disputed
  questions of facts were determined one way or the other based
  on relevant legally acceptable material evidence, there was
  no scope for granting any other relief except the relief of E
  interim maintenance, which the High Court had granted in a
   sum of Rs.25,0001- per month - The disputed questions of
  fact could not have been examined in the writ proceedings;
  rather it could be appropriately examined by the Magistrate
  - However, suit filed by appellant was dismissed while she was F
  pursuing her remedies before the Supreme Court - Appellant
1 is granted liberty to get the suit revived by filing appropriate

  application before the Magistrate.

     Disposing of the appeals, the Court
                                                                   G
     HELD:1. Various claims of the Appellant as regards
the subsistence of the marriage with Respondent No.4 as
well as her other grievances involved determination of
very seriously disputed questions of fact and unless and
                          507                                      H
     508     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014) 11 S.C.R.    •

 A  until such disputed questions of facts are determined one
    way or the other based on relevant legally acceptable
    material evidence, there is no scope for granting any
    other relief except the relief of interim maintenance, which
    the High Court decided to grant and ultimately granted
. B in a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. [Para 9] (515-B-C]

        2. A detailed enquiry would be required to be made
   by the appropriate forum in order to give an authoritative
   pronouncement as to the existence or otherwise of the
   matrimonial relationship of the Appellant and
 C Respondent No.4. Such seriously disputed questions of
   fact could not have been examined in the writ
   proceedings. [Para 12] [516-E-F]

        3. The various disputed questions of fact which arise
 D for consideration in these appeals can be appropriately
   examined by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
   Patiala House Courts, New Delhi if the appellant's suit is
   revived and disposed of on merits. Since the said course
   would be an appropriate course to put an end to the long
 E drawn litigation as between the Appellant and
   Respondent No.4, the Appellant can be granted liberty to
   get the Suit revived by filing an appropriate application
   before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House
   Courts, New Delhi. [Para 13] [517-C-E]
 F       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
     8439-8440 of 2009.

       From the Judgment & Order dated 06.05.2009 in Letters
   Patent Appeal No. 64 of 2009 and the order dated 18.05.2009
 G in Review Petition No. 205 of 2009 of the Division Bench of
   the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.

           Meena Chaudhary (Appellant-in-person)

           Pinky Anand, ASG, M.N. Krishnamani, Atul Jha, Sandeep,
 H
•     MEENA CHAUDHARY v. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI
                      POLICE

    Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Mohan Prasad Gupta (For Anil
                                                                509


                                                                        A
    Katiyar) for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. In the
    present appeals the Appellant, who is a Gynaecologist by            B
    profession and has appeared before us as a party-in-person,
    is aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of the High
    Court of Delhi dated 06.05.2009 in LPA No.64i2009 along with
    CM Nos. 1801,4625 & 4770 of 2009.
                                                                        c
         2. The brief facts, which are required to be stated in order
    to appreciate and find a solution to eliminate the grievances
    of the Appellant, are that the Appellant got married to
    Respondent No.4 herein in the year 1973 and thereafter, a son
    and a daughter were born out of the said wedlock in the years       D
    1974 and 1977, respectively. Differences stated to have arisen
    as between the Appellant and Respondent No.4 with regard to
    their matrimonial affair and according to the Appellant,
    Respondent No.4 deserted her in the year 1989. There were
    two matrimonial Suits initiated, one at the instance of the         E
    Appellant being Suit No.T.S. (M) No.7 of 1991, which was
    transferred to the Additional District Judge, Jorhat, Assam with
    a new number T.S. (M) No.10/91 and another at the instance
    of the 4th Respondent being matrimonial Suit No.4/1996. Both
    the suits were stated to have been dismissed. It is the further     F
    case of the Appellant that thereafter, the 4th Respondent
    claimed to have divorced her by relying upon an alleged divorce
    decree dated 29.09.1989 by consent from the Court of Bhutan
    and also another divorce decree dated 05.03.1999 granted by
    the Court in England at the instance of the Appellant apart from    G
    another divorce decree at Jorhat. The Appellant does not admit
    to the existence of any of the decrees relied on by the
    Respondent No.4.

         3. Be that as it may, according to Respondent No.4, the
                                                                        H
    510-     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 11 S.C.R. •


A divorce as between the Appellant and Respondent No.4 had
  come into existence by virtue of the above decrees granted by
  the competent courts and that he was subsequently married to
  one Smt. Vidushi Shah in 1991 and that the present marriage
  was also upheld by the Delhi High Court by an order dated
B 25.01.2012 in Crl M.P. No.3845 of 2010. The Appellant
  contended that the marriage as between her and Respondent
  No.4 continued to subsist, that she was living in her matrimonial
  home at B-108, Hill View Apartments, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi
  from where she was forcibly evicted on 05.05.2008. It is the
C further contention of the Appellant that the said matrimonial
  home, being a joint family property, was acquired by her father-
  in-law, namely, Respondent No.4's father which was transferred
  by his mother in his favour after the demise of her husband and
  that subsequently Respondent No.4 was taking every effort to
D transfer the said property without the consent of other members
  of the family.

       4. It is in the above stated background the Appellant filed
  a Suit No.51 /2008 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate,
E Patiala House Courts, New Delhi under Section 12 of the
  Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
  (hereinafter to be called as "the Act") claiming various reliefs,
  namely, protection orders under Section 18 of the Act,
  residence orders under Section 19 of the Act, monetary relief
F under Section 20 of the Act, compensation and damages under
  Section 22 of the Act, interim orders under Section 23 of the
  Act and order prohibiting Respondent No.4 from committing
  acts of domestic violence and from repeating the same and
  such other interim orders as the Court may deem fit, just and
G proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

       5. When the said Suit was pending, the Appellant moved
  the High Court by way of a writ petition against some Delhi
  Police officers as well as Respondent No.4 herein for issuance
  of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the police authorities to
H provide the Appell(!nt full security of life, liberty and property •
•     MEENA CHAUDHARY v. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI                     511
      POLICE [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
    apart from direction to the police authorities not to obstruct her    A
    from using the residential premises bearing number B-108, Hill
    View Apartments, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The said writ
    petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. As
    against the said order of dismissal of the writ petition, the
    Appellant preferred LPA No.64/2009 and also filed                     B
    miscellaneous applications being CM Nos.1801, 4625 & 4770
    of 2009. The Division Bench after referring to the various facts
    relating to the marriage of the Appellant with Respondent No.4
    and also the subsequent events held that the claim of the
    Appellant about the subsisting nature of her married life with        C
    Respondent No.4 is a highly contested issue, which involved
    very many disputed questions of facts as regards the alleged
    consent decree of divorce issued by the Courts of Bhutan,
    England, as well as the Court at Jorhat, including the claim of
    the Appellant that such orders were either forged or not valid        D
    for want of jurisdiction. The Division Bench further held that such
    disputed questions of facts will have to be examined only by
    an appropriate Court and cannot be examined and answered
    in the writ proceedings. Therefore, the Division Bench held that
    the Appellant having initiated proceedings under Section 12 of        E
    the Act which was pending on the file of the Additional Chief
    Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in
    Suit No.51/2008, all the contentious issues can be thrashed out
    in the said proceedings. The Division Bench, however, taking
    note of the plight of the Appellant based on her grievances           F
    expressed, thought it appropriate to direct Respondent No.4
    to pay to the Appellant interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per
    month till a decision on grant of ad-interim maintenance is taken
    in Suit No.51/2008 apart from directing payment of a sum of
    Rs.25000/- towards litigation expenses in Suit No.51/2008. On         G
    deposit of the said sum, the Appellant was also permitted to
    withdraw the said amount. The Division Bench also directed
    the learned Magistrate to decide the application for interim
    maintenance expeditiously and in any event within a period of
    three months from the date of the order, namely, 06.05.2009.          H
    512     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 11 S.C.R. •


A        6. While the Appellant came forward with these appeals
    against the said order of the Division Bench, Respondent No.4
    also filed an appeal against the very same order in Civil Appeal
    No.8190/2009 in so far as it related to direction for payment
    of interim maintenance. When these appeals were heard on
B   earlier occasions, the Appellant came forward with I.A. Nos, 7-
    8, 9-10, 11-12and13-14 of2011. In I.A. Nos.7-8 of2011, the
    Appellant prayed for an urgent interim order of maintenance and
    residence in a suitable form of a matrimonial home, an order
    to secure compliance with Respondent No.4 by confiscating his
c   passport and his current Commercial Pilot Licence and also
    pass an order of sentence against Respondent No.4 for
    Contempt of Court. I.A. Nos.7-8 of 2011 were dismissed by an
    order of this Court dated 23.09.2011 as being misconceived.
    This Court noted that the prayer 'a' made by way of an interim
D   relief is the core issue to be determined in these appeals and
    the other prayers do not arise for consideration in the main
    appeal. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the
    main Suit, namely, Suit No.51/2008 itself was dismissed by the
    Metropolitan Magistrate on 21.09.2011. That apart, whatever
E   interim maintenance, which was directed to be paid by the
    Division Bench, which worked out to a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-
    up to the date of dismissal of the Suit, was also paid; once by
    way of Demand Draft to the value of Rs.5,50,000/- on
    01.06.2011 as reflected in this Court's order dated 01.06.2011.
F   Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
    Respondent No.4 stated that the balance amount was also duly
    paid, which was not disputed by the Appellant before us. The
    appeal preferred by Respondent No.4 (viz) C.A. No.8190/2009
    was dismissed by this Court on 21.02.2014.
G        7. Keeping the above stated factors relating to the
    grievances of the Appellant raised in Suit No.51/2008, as. well
    as, in the writ petition from which the impugned order came to
    be passed by the Division Bench, we heard the Appellant-in-
    person at great length. In her submissions, the Appellant after
H
•     MEENA CHAUDHARY v. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI
      POLICE [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
                                                               513


    making detailed reference to the various factors in her written A
    submissions noted by us in the earlier paragraphs, contended
    that the marriage as between her and Respondent No.4
    continue to subsist even as on date, that she is entitled to share
    the matrimonial home at B-108, Hill View Apartments, Vasant
    Vihar, New Delhi, that the said property which was owned by B
    her father-in-law came to be transferred in favour of her mother-
    in-law and that thereafter continued to remain as joint family
    holding in the hands of Respondent No.4 and as a lawfully
    wedded wife of Respondent No.4, she is entitled to share
    household in the said premises. According to her, Respondent C
    No.4 cannot, therefore, forcibly evict her from the said premises
    and such action of Respondent No.4 needs to be restrained
    by the orders of this Court. She also contended that the reliance
    placed upon by Respondent No.4 on the order dated
    25.01.2012 of the High Court of Delhi in Crl.M.P. No.3845 of D
    201 O by which Respondent No.4's subsequent marriage with
    Smt. Vidushi Shah was held as valid should also be declarE:.J
    as null and void. She further contended that her prayer for
    interim maintenance as provided under Section 26 of the Act
    should, therefore, be granted as prayed for in her miscellaneous E
    petitions filed in LPA No.64 of 2009.

          8. Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned Senior Counsel who
    appeared for Respondent No.4 also vehemently contended that
    the Appellant has not come with clean hands, that the decree F
    of divorce granted by the Bhutan Court in the year 1989 was a
    consent decree, that the decree of divorce granted by the
    British Court was at the instance of the Appellant herself, that
    the third decree granted by the Court at Jorhat was also valid
    in law, that the Appellant herself, while making her claim for a G
    share in the family properties against her brothers admitted the
    dissolution of marriage as between her and Respondent No.4
    and, therefore, it is too late in the day for the Appellant to claim
    nearly after 20 years, in the year 2008, that she is the wife of
    Respondent No.4. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed H
    514      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 11 S.C.R       •


A   out that the children, namely, the son and the daughter are 39
    and 36 years old respectively and are well settled in England
    and are practicing medicine and law and that the Appellant
    herself is well placed. The learned Senior Counsel, in his written
    submissions, pointed out that the Appellant has got a built up
B   property bearing No.K-1467, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon measuring
    836 sq. yards where she is running her clinic apart from earning
    substantial rental income, that she purchased a property in
    Sainik Farms, Delhi in the name of her son which was
    confirmed by her son who is living in United Kingdom and who
C   is a British Citizen, that the Appellant is in possession of Flat
    No.1260, Sector-D, Pocket-1, Vasant Kunj since January, 2002
    which was provided to her by a medical company in view of
    her services as a doctor, that she is also running a Women's
    Medical Centre in her Palam Vihar House, that even as per her
D   own statement in paragraph 2.22 of CWP No.4023/2008 she
    had Rs.15,00,000/- with her in July, 2003 and that she also
    stealthily removed valuables, jewellery and cash of Respondent
    No.4 and his present wife worth more than Rs.20,00,000/- when
    she forcibly entered into their living house when both of them
E   were away on holidays outside India. The learned Senior
    Counsel, therefore, contended that now as Suit No.51/2008 was
    also dismissed on 21.09.2011 nothing survives in these
    appeals and they deserve to be dismissed.

F      9. Having heard the strenuous contentions of the Appellant
  as well as the submissions of Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned
  Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 and having
  perused the various materials placed before this Court in these
  appeals, we find that the substantial grievance of the Appellant
G relating to the subsistence of her marriage with Respondent
  No.4, as well as, her prayer for grant of protection for share in
  the matrimonial household as well as interim maintenance were
  all subject matter of consideration in Suit No.51/2008, which
  was filed by the Appellant before the Additional Chief
H Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Ir
•     MEENA CHAUDHARY v. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI                   515
      POLICE [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
    this respect, we fully concur with the conclusion of the Division   A
    Bench in the impugned order, wherein the Division Bench took
    the view that various claims of the Appellant as regards the
    subsistence of the marriage with Respondent No.4 as well as
    her other grievances involved determination of very seriously
    disputed questions of fact and unless and until such disputed       B
    questions of facts are determined one way or the other based
    on relevant legally acceptable material evidence, there is no
    scope for granting any other relief except the relief of interim
    maintenance, which the Division Bench decided to grant and
    ultimately granted in a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. While         C
    issuing the said direction, the Division Bench gathered the
    details as to the income of Respondent No.4 by directing him
    to produce the salary certificate and other sources of income
    as well as the income tax returns ~or the assessment years
    2007-08 and 2008-09, which was duly filed by Respondent             D
    No.4 before the Division Bench. Based on the above records,
    the take home pay of Respondent No.4 was noted as
    Rs.3,49,000/- per month.

         10. Mr. Krishnamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing          E
    for Respondent No.4, however, pointed out that Respondent
    No.4 is now 65 years old, that he is now retired and is no longer
    working as a Commercial Pilot. We were also apprised of the
    position that during the pendency of these appeals, whatever
    arrears that were payable pursuant to the direction of the
                                                                        F
    Division Bench by way of interim maintenance were also duly
    paid to the Appellant in the sum of Rs.9,00,000/- which was
    calculated up to the date of dismissal of Suit No.51/2008. We
    also wish to note that this Court explored the possibility of an
    out of Court settlement by an order dated 01.06.2011 and
    directed the parties to appear before the Mediation Centre of       G
    the Supreme Court on 18.07.2011. While facilitating the parties
    to go for mediation, this Court directed the proceedings
    pending between them before different Courts to remain
    stayed till 18.08.2011. Subsequently, since the efforts of the      H
    516     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 11 S.CR. •


A   Mediation Centre did not fructify in a settlement and there was
    no order extending the stay granted by this Court on 01.06.2011
    and since the Appellant did not appear before the learned
    Magistrate on the subsequent hearing dates it transpires that
    t~e Suit itself came to be dismissed on 21.09.2011.
B
       11. We find from the records that the learned Magistrate
  by an order dated 10.08.2009 in compliance with directions of
  the Division Bench in the impugned order dated 06.05.2009,
  passed orders directing Respondent No.4 to pay a sum of
C Rs.25,000/- per month by way of interim maintenance by
  holding that all other reliefs sought by the Appellant which are
  based on contentious issues will be considered later at an
  appropriate stage.

          12. In the light of the above subsequent developments, we
D are also of the considered view that in these appec;ils it will not
    be appropriate to delve deep into the claim of the Appellant
    that her marriage continues to subsist or that the stand of
    Respondent No.4 that the relationship as between the Appellant
    and him got snapped as early as in the year 1989 as well as
E   in the subsequent divorce decree of the year 1999. In our view,
    a detailed enquiry would be required to be made by the
    appropriate forum in order to give an authoritative
    pronouncement as to the existence or otherwise of the
  . matrimonial relationship of the Appellant and Respondent No.4.
F As rightly held by the learned Single Judge and as confirmed
    by the Division Bench, such seriously disputed questions of fact
    could not have been examined in the writ proceedings. It is also
    required to be noted that according to Respondent No.4, the
    Appellant owns properties in her name, which are very valuable
G apart from the properties which she stated to have secured in·
    the name of her son; who is a British Citizen; in a prominent
    locality in Delhi apart from the allegation that she is carrying
    on her professional activities through which she was able to get
    accommodation in a flat through a pharmaceutical company,
H in which premises she presently lives, are all relevant facts ar,d
•     MEENA CHAUDHARY v. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI                    517
    . POLICE [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

    the truthfulness of such facts, therefore, requires to be            A
    ascertained in the appropriate proceedings in order to grant
    or not to grant any relief to the Appellant. Unfortunately, the
    Appellant's Suit No.51/2008 came to be dismissed on
    21.09.2011, while she was pursuing her remedies before this
    Court in these appeals.                                              B

          13. We do not wish to go into the minute details as to who
    was at fault which resulted in the dismissal of the Appellant's
    Suit No. 51/2008, inasmuch as we feel that the various
    disputed questions of fact which arise for consideration in these    c
    appeals can be appropriately examined by the Additional Chief
    Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi if the
    said Suit is revived and disposed of on merits. Since in our
    considered opinion, the said course would be an appropriate
    course to put an end to the long drawn litigation as between         D
    the Appellant and Respondent No.4, we are convinced that the
    Appellant can be granted liberty to get the Suit revived by filing
    an appropriate application before the learned Chief
    Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in
    which event, the said Court can be directed to revive the            E
    proceedings taking into account the pendency of these appeals
    in which the Appellant was rigorously seeking for the redressal
    of her grievances. In this context, we take into account the fact
    that the Appellant was duly paid the arrears of interim
    maintenance ordered by the Division Bench in the impugned
                                                                         F
    order, in all a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- which was duly paid by
    Respondent No.4 along with the sum of Rs.25,000/- towards
    litigation expenses.

         14. In the light of our above conclusion, we hold that there
    is no merit in these appeals in challenging the order of the         G
    Division Bench and the appeals are disposed of as such. We,
    however, direct the Appellant that if she is so interested and
    keen, she may file an appropriate application before the
    Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts,
    New Delhi in Suit No.51/2008 for its restoration along with the      H
    518     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 11 S.C.R . •


A necessary application for condonation of delay in filing such
  application for restoration. In the event of such application being
  filed within four weeks from this date, the Additional Chief
  Metropolitan Magistrate Patiala House Courts shall take up the
  application for hearing .and pass appropriate orders for
B restoration of the Suit in order to give one final opportunity to
  the Appellant to contest her claim on merits.

        15. It is needless to state that Respondent No.4 should also
  be given due opportunity in the said Suit for resisting the claim
c of the Appellant. As per the order of the learned Chief
  Metropolitan Magistrate dated 10.08.2009, the said Court can
  decide all other claims of the Appellant on a later date which
  have been' duly noted in paragraph 2 of its order dated
  10.08.2009 while passing final orders in Suit No.51/2008.
0 Since  the said Suit came to be dismissed on 21.09.2011 and
  the interim maintenance directed to be paid by the Division
  Bench as per the impugned order, was pending disposal of an
  order for interim maintenance to be passed in Suit No.51/2008
  and by an order dated 10.08.2009, the payment of interim
E maintenance was fixed in a sum of Rs.25,000/- and the Suit
  having been dismissed on 21.09.2011, the Appellant was not
  entitled for any interim maintenance beyond the month of
  September, 2009. Therefore, the sum of Rs.9,00,000/- already
  paid by the Respondent No.4 will be in full settlement of the
F interim maintenance payable for the period up to 21.09.2011
  when the Suit came to be dismissed.

       16. Since we have now granted an opportunity to the
  Appellant to seek for restoration of the Suit in order to be
  decided on merits, if and when the Appellant files necessary
G application within four weeks as directed in this order, the
  direction for· interim maintenance as per order dated
  10.08.2009 shall get revived on filing of such application and
  shall be continued to be paid by Respondent No.4 at the same
  rate of Rs.25,000/- per month till Suit No.51/2008 is disposed
H of on merits. We also direct the learned Chief Metropolit2.n
•     MEENA CHAUDHARY v. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI                      519
      POLICE [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

    Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi to decide Suit             A
    No.51/2008 after its restoration expeditiously and preferably
    within four months from the date of such restoration and till final
    orders are passed in the said Suit No.51/2008, the payment
    of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- shall be
    continued to be paid by Respondent No.4 to the appellant. With         B
    the above directions, the appeals stand disposed of.
    Accordingly, the applications for impleadment are also
    dismissed. No costs.

    Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                            Appeals disposed of.   C