Delhi District CourtSh. R K Anand vs Mrs. Charu Chawla on 2 November, 2017IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
                     ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­04
     & SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) SOUTH­EAST: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI


CA  159 of 2017 in CA No. 52 of17


Sh. R K Anand 
S/o Late Sh. R L Anand
R/o 13, Darbhanga Farms
DLF, Chhatarpur
New Delhi­110030                                                                    ..... Appellant

                  Versus

1        Mrs. Charu Chawla
         W/o Mr. Chetan Anand
         R/o B­43, Maharani Bagh
         Eastern Avenue
         New Delhi­110065.

2        Mr. Chetan Anand
         S/o Mr R K Anand
         R/o D­384, 3rd Floor
         Defence Colony
         New Delhi­110048                                                    ....... Respondents


Instituted on: 21.04.2017
Argued on    : 26..10.2017
Decided on   : 02.11.2017


                                              JUDGMENT1                 Feeling   aggrieved   from   the   order   dated   24.03.2017   passed   by

the Court of Ms. Chetna Singh,  Ld. MM­01 (Mahila Court), SED, Saket Courts,

New Delhi in case  CC No. 2377/17  titled as "Charu Chawla Vs. Chetan Anand

&   Anr.",   whereby   the   then   Ld.   MM   was   pleased   to   issue   notice   of   the

application undersection 12of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 ( hereinafter referred as "PWDVA"), filed by the respondent no. 1

herein   against   the   appellant   and   respondent   no.   2   herein,   which   wasCA No.52/16          Sh. R K Anand   Vs. Mrs. Charu Chawla & Anr.                              Page No.1 / 14impugned by the appellant before this Court by way of present appeal filed

undersection  29of the PWDVA, on the following amongst other grounds:­

         That   the   Ld.   M.M.   had   failed   to   appreciate   the   fact   that   marriage

between the respondent no. 1 and 2 herein was solemnized on 23.2.2008 and

both of them, being his daughter­in­law and son, had stayed with him after

marriage in premises bearing No. 13, Darbhanga Farm, Chattarpur, New Delhi,

which is the residence of the appellant. It was stated further that both the

respondents had permanently shifted from the aforesaid premises to a rented

premises   bearing   No.   S­288,   Panchsheel   Park,   New   Delhi   in   the   month   of

January, 2014 of their own, which was taken on rent by respondent no. 1 in

the name of  her company of which she was a Director, which was the shared

household of the respondent no. 1 and 2 and hence there was no subsisting

domestic relationship between the appellant and the respondents, when the

applicationu/s 12PWDVA was filed by the respondent no. 1 herein before the

Ld. Trial Court and hence the impugned order as passed by the Ld. MM was

bad in the eyes of law.It was stated further that if the relationship did not continue, a person

could not have been made a respondent on the ground of existence  of a mere

past relationship. The "domestic relationship", as defined undersection 2(f)of

the Act between the "aggrieved person", as defined undersection 2(a)of the

Act,   and   the   respondent   must   be   present   and   alive   at   the   time   of   filing   a

complaint   under   the   PWDVA.   Admittedly,   the   marriage   between   the

respondent no. 1 and respondents no. 2 herein was a love marriage and if suchCA No.52/16          Sh. R K Anand   Vs. Mrs. Charu Chawla & Anr.                              Page No.2 / 14marriage  had   failed,   then,   the  parents   of   both   bride   and   groom  had   equal

responsibility and in such cases parents' house of the bride is also considered a

woman's   shared   household   in   India.   Since   the   appellant   was/is   living

separately   from   his   son   (respondent   no.   2   herein),   he   could   have   been

included in the family of the respondent no. 2 only if he was dependent upon

respondent   no.   2   and   was   living   with   him   in   the   same   house.   Since   the

appellant is not dependent upon respondent no. 2 and living separately from

him, both the respondents herein would constitute separate family especially

after they had established their own shared household at S­288, Panchsheel

Park, New Delhi, in January 2014 and hence the respondent no. 1 had no right

to live in the property of the appellant and the complaint filed by respondent

no. 1 herein was barred by limitation in view ofsection 468CrPC.It was stated further that living together could be either soon before

filing of the petition or "at any point of time",  and since both the respondents

herein had given up their living together with the appellant herein and had

established their separate household and had also removed their belongings

from the house of the appellant, then domestic relationship, as claimed by the

respondent  no. 1  herein,  had   come to  an  end  and  only  the  relationship of

being relatives of each other had survived and hence the appellant was not a

necessary party in the present matter, hence, it has been prayed that impugned

order as passed by the Ld. MM qua the appellant was liable to be set aside by

this court in the exercise of its appellate powers and jurisdiction.

2                 Briefly stating the facts that had given rise to the present appealCA No.52/16          Sh. R K Anand   Vs. Mrs. Charu Chawla & Anr.                              Page No.3 / 14are succinctly given as under:­

3                 A marriage between the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2

herein, who are the daughter­in­law and son of the appellant was solemnized

on  23.2.22008,  after   which   they  started  living   in  property   of   the   appellant

bearing No. 13, Darghanga Farms, Chattarpur, New Delhi. However, in the

month of January, 2014, both the respondents herein left the said property

and started living in a rented accommodation bearing No. S­288, Panchsheel

Park,   New   Delhi,   in   respect   of   which   a   lease   deed   dated   25.3.2014     for   a

period  of  three years  was also  executed  by respondent no.  1  herein in  the

name of her company M/s Ravissant Private Ltd. of which she was cited as one

of the Directors and the said lease was to commence from 25.2.2014 @ Rs. 3

lacs per month.However,   thereafter   the   relationship   between   the   respondents   herein

got   strained   with   the   passage   of   time   and   respondent   no.   1   herein   filed   a

petition undersection 12of DV Act against the respondent no. 2 herein as well

as the appellant herein levelling various allegations of emotional, verbal and

economic abuse against them and on the said petition filed by the respondent

no.   1   herein,   the   Ld.   MM   vide   the   impugned   order   had   summoned   the

appellant   as   well   as   respondent   No.   2   and   had   directed   them   to   file   their

respective replies to the said petition.4                 Feeling aggrieved from the said summoning order, the appellant

had filed the present appeal on the aforesaid grounds.5                 I have heard Sh. Uday Gupta for the appellant and Sh. MaheshCA No.52/16          Sh. R K Anand   Vs. Mrs. Charu Chawla & Anr.                              Page No.4 / 14Jethmalani,   Ld.   Sr.   Counsel   and   Ms.   Manali   Singhal,   Ld.   Counsel   for

respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 in person, who happens to be a

practicing advocate.6                 I have also perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the

appellant as well as the respondent no. 1 alongwith citations.

7                 In the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant, it has

been   contended   that   their   existed   no   "shared   household"   or   "domestic

relationship" between the appellant and the respondent no. 1 herein as she

had left  the house of the appellant of her own free will and had shifted  to a

separate and independent accommodation with her husband (respondent no.2) in the month of January, 2014 and thus, "domestic relationship" between

the appellant and her came to an end after her leaving the said house of the

appellant.8                 It has also been stated that legal position regarding interpretation

to be  afforded to the expression  "at any point of time"  used insection 2(f)of

the DV Act  is no longer res integra and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in at least 3

decisions had explained the meaning to be assigned to the extent and manner

of this term, which according to Hon'ble Delhi High Court, could not mean "at

any point of time in the past" for the past period irrespective of the survival of

right to live together. Reliance in this regard has been placed  on (1) Vijay

Verma v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr, 2010 (118) DRJ 520;   (2) Harbans Lal

Malik & Ors v. Payal Malik, 171 (2010) DLT 67, and (3) Hima Chugh v. Pritam

Ashok Sadaphule & Ors, 2013 (4) Crimes) 15 (Del.)CA No.52/16          Sh. R K Anand   Vs. Mrs. Charu Chawla & Anr.                              Page No.5 / 149                 Secondly, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that

present petition filed by the respondent no. 1 herein, is time barred as the

offence committed under theDV Actis punishable only with an imprisonment

up to 1 year and as per the provisions ofsection 468CrPC, if an offence is

punishable with imprisonment of such duration, no cognizance can be taken

by any Court after expiry of a period of one year from the date of commission

of the offence.10                However, I am not impressed with this plea and argument taken on

behalf of the appellant assection 468CrPC only puts a bar on taking cognizance of

the offence after lapse of the period of limitation, whereas no substantial offence has

been provided under theDV Actand it is only by way of a willful disobedience or

flouting of orders or directions of Ld. MM, issued under the aforesaid Act, which

shall constitute such offence.11                Further, I have no hesitation in holding thatsection 469CrPC talks

about commencement of period of limitation which essentially provides

commencement of such period from the date of either commission of the offence itself

or from the date of acquiring any knowledge of the same. It is needless to mention

here itself that no orders of any kind have been willfully disobeyed or flouted in this

case and hence any offence under theDV Actis yet to take place. Therefore, the

citation ofInderjeet Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 588,

relied upon by the appellant is of no use and avail to him.12                Thirdly, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that

allegations as contained in the petition under theDV Actthemselves are getting

falsified by the accompanying                documents containing the contents of messagesCA No.52/16          Sh. R K Anand   Vs. Mrs. Charu Chawla & Anr.                              Page No.6 / 14exchanged between the appellant and respondent no. 1 herein by mode of Whats App

as well as SMSs. Some text of those messages have also been reproduced on behalf

of the appellant.13                In her written submissions filed on record, it has been contended on

behalf of respondent no. 1 that by virtue ofsection 2(q)of DV Act, she was entitled to

maintain her petition against the present appellant as well. It has also been stated that

specific instances have been mentioned by her in her petition citing verbal/emotional

and economic abuse per se against her by appellant herein. It has also been contended

that respondent no. 1 also had a right to live in the "shared household" as her husband

(respondent no. 2 herein) was also having 1/4th share in the said property situated at

Chattarpur, New Delhi and it was under the well hatched criminal conspiracy entered

between the appellant and respondent no. 2 herein that she was made to move out of

the said property and to shift to the rented accommodation at Panchsheel Park, New

Delhi. Reliance has also been placed on the citation of "S.R. Batra & Anr. V. Taruna

Batra: (2007) 3 SCC 169, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with issue of

"shared household" was pleased to hold that "shared household" would also mean and

include the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or house which

belongs to joint family of which husband was the member (para 29).

14                It was also contended on behalf of respondent no. 1 that the appellant

herein had made a false claim regarding his exclusive ownership of property No. 13,

Darbhanga Farm, Chattarpur, New Delhi, as her husband (respondent no. 2 herein)

was also having 1/4th undivided share in the said property and thus she was also

entitled to right of residence in the said property being wife of respondent no. 2

herein. It has also been contended on behalf of respondent no. 1 that question as toCA No.52/16          Sh. R K Anand   Vs. Mrs. Charu Chawla & Anr.                              Page No.7 / 14whether appellant had committed any verbal/emotional and economic abuse qua her

is a mixed question of facts and law and cannot be determined or adjudicated upon

without affording an opportunity to her to prove those allegations by adducing

necessary evidence on record. Reliance in this regard has also been placed on the

citation of "Maj.S S Khanna v. Brig.F.J. Dhillon", (1964) 4 SCC 409; and "M/s

Jagdamba Industries v. Sh. Krishnan Prasad", ILR (2011) DELHI 115.

15                Lastly, it has also been stated on behalf of respondent no. 1 that

application was not time barred.16                Alongwith her written submissions, respondent no. 1 had also filed on

record Annexure A citing various allegations levelled by her against the appellant

herein narrating instances of verbal/emotional and economic abuses and violence

committed upon her.17                From a bare perusal of the complaint/petition filed before the Ld. Trial

Court, it is reflected in para 4 (c), that it was mentioned by respondent no. 1 herein

that soon after the Roka Ceremony, on 11.11.2007, her father was compelled by the

appellant herein as well as respondent no. 2 herein to arrange for expensive gifts as

well as for meeting out the entire marriage expenses, as they had great respect and

status in the legal and political fraternity.18                However, I have no hesitation in holding that these allegations do not

constitute any violence under theDV Actas the said demands were alleged to have

been made by the appellant or respondent no. 2 herein, before having entered into any

kind of "domestic relationship" with respondent no. 2 or the appellant as the marriage

was yet to take place and hence she could not have been held to be either residing or

having resided with the appellant or respondent no. 2 at that time.CA No.52/16          Sh. R K Anand   Vs. Mrs. Charu Chawla & Anr.                              Page No.8 / 1419                As per para 4(f), it was stated that soon after her marriage, respondent

no. 1 herein was compelled to leave her work and to look after the ailing wife of

appellant, who also happened to be her mother-in-law as she was suffering from

multiple serosis and always remained on wheel chair and required constant attention.

20                However, quite contrary to her own allegations, it has been mentioned

further by her in the said para itself that pursuant to her repeated requests, she was

permitted to work 3-4 times in a week and for few hours only..It is to be noticed here itself that no allegation has been levelled against the

present appellant regarding his having ever stopped respondent no. 1 from working.

Moreover, the fact that even in the year 2014, the respondent no. 1 had taken the

property on lease in the name of the company in which she was also one of the

Directors itself goes to show that she was still working and had continued to work

even till the date of execution of the said lease deed.So far as the allegations qua appellant regarding his taunting about respondent

no. 1 in the presence of guests related to her cooking skills being limited or she ought

to have learned cooking skills in a much better manner are concerned, I have no

hesitation in holding that only bald and vague allegations have been made in the

present para without citing any specific instances or any particulars related to the date,

time and place and the persons before whom such taunts were allegedly made by the

appellant.21                Similarly, in para 4 (g), it has been averred that in the family and social

gatherings, respondent no. 1 was described as "bad omen" by the appellant and

respondent no. 2 herein.However, again, no particular instances of this kind of behavour have beenCA No.52/16          Sh. R K Anand   Vs. Mrs. Charu Chawla & Anr.                              Page No.9 / 14specifically mentioned and thus the same appear to be vague and bald in nature

having no force in them.22                In para 4 (h), it was alleged that the appellant and respondent no. 2

herein used to tell her that as a wife/woman, her duty was to remain at home and to

take car of domestic affairs.As observed earlier, when the respondent no. 1 had continued her working

since marriage, it shows that even if any such advice was rendered to her either by the

appellant or by respondent no. 2 herein but she had not paid any heed to the same. The

kind of abuse (if any), she had suffered by the said words is beyond any logic and

understanding of a prudent mind.23                So far as allegations contained in para 4(i) are concerned, the same are

primarily against the respondent no. 2 herein and only role scribed to the conduct of

the appellant herein is that supporting of his son and telling the respondent no. 1 that

being a duty full Hindu wife, it was her duty to listen to her husband and fulfill all his

wishes, needs and demands.Even if, it is presumed that the contents of this para are correct per se, then

also, I have no hesitation in holding that in each and every family of Hindu society, it

is the duty of elders of the family to apprise the younger generation about the social

ethics, moral values, customs, culture and traditions. Thus, any such preaching of

elders of the family, could not be construed as having caused any kind of abuse to

younger members of the family.Similarly, once it is presumed in our society that taking care of ailing

or old parents is a pious obligation of the son, then, it also becomes the joint

obligation of daughter-in-law as well after her marriage to contribute in dischargingCA No.52/16          Sh. R K Anand   Vs. Mrs. Charu Chawla & Anr.                              Page No.10 / 14of this pious obligation of her husband.Thus, even if, it is presumed that respondent no. 1 herein was ever

called upon by respondent no. 2 to take care of his ailing mother, then also, I do not

find it to be a such harsh or unreasonable demand which could have constituted any

kind of abuse upon her.24                In para 4(q), it has been stated by respondent no. 1 that appellant herein

had taunted her regarding her increased expenditures after the birth of child which

had caused her mental agony and torture.However, I fail to understand that once it was not even the case of respondent

no. 1 herein that she or her husband were financially dependent upon the appellant for

their survival, then, why and where was the need and occasion for the appellant to

have taunted her about her expenditure.25                So far as allegations contained in para 4 (s) regarding appellant's

blaming respondent no. 1 in social gatherings as being responsible for moving out of

his farm house in a separate rented accommodation are concerned, again, no specific

instance has been cited by her and only general averments are made in the petition.Further, the allegations of appellant having forced the father of respondent no.

1 here to pay the rent of the rented accommodation gets falsified from the very fact

itself that rent of the said property was being paid from the account of the company in

which respondent no. 1 was also one of the Directors and the rent was not paid from

the personal account of her father.26                So far as the allegations contained in the remaining paras are

concerned, the same are primarily against the respondent no. 2 herein and not against

the appellant herein, except in para 4(ee), wherein she had alleged that mobile phoneCA No.52/16          Sh. R K Anand   Vs. Mrs. Charu Chawla & Anr.                              Page No.11 / 14phones containing highly sexually explicit and vulgar messages exchanged between

respondent no. 2 and one of his girl friend, were taken by the appellant herein by way

of inducement and were not returned to her later on again, the same appeared to be

vague in nature as no particular date of such handing over of phones or demanding

them back has been mentioned by her in the petition.Moreover, the allegations per se talk about only the alleged inducement hurled

out by present appellant to her and does not talk about any dishonest or fraudulent

inducement which could have constituted commission of any kind of offence or to

have caused any kind of emotional abuse to respondent no. 1 herein.

27                It shall be further worthwhile to mention here itself that alongwith the

petition, the respondent no. 1 here had also filed various documents including

chat/messages held/exchanged between her and the appellant which tell entirely a

different and contradictory story to what has been mentioned in the petition filed by

her.28                From the bare perusal of the entire chat/massages placed on record by

the respondent no. 1 herein, it does not appear anywhere that relations between her

and the appellant were strained and unhealthy at any given point of time, whatsoever.

Rather, from the perusal of the same, it appears that their relations were very cordial

and healthy one and appellant was always ready to help her out in a best possible

manner. It is the settled proposition of law that a person can lie but document never

lie, hence, even though it could be presumed that respondent no. 1 had ever lived in a

shared household with the appellant, then also, from the contents of the chat and

messages, it become apparently clear that no domestic violence was ever committed

upon her by the appellant herein.CA No.52/16          Sh. R K Anand   Vs. Mrs. Charu Chawla & Anr.                              Page No.12 / 1429                In our Indian culture and society, elders of the family always try to

build up and strengthen the family bonds and not to break the same and with best of

their ability, they try to pacify the situation, if any kind of matrimonial

differences/discord arises between a young couple in the family. Therefore, even if it

is presumed that appellant was also trying to pacify the tensed situation prevailing

between respondent no. 1 and 2 herein, then, by any stretch of imagination, it could

not have been said that he had committed any kind of violence or abuse qua

respondent no. 1 herein.The only sin appears to have been committed by the appellant was marrying

his son with respondent no. 1 and later on, firstly, trying to pacify their tensions and

grievances and when the situation could not be controlled by him, then giving up his

efforts and letting the parties to live in their own fashion, style and manner, due to

which fact, he had faced wrath from her daughter-in-law (respondent no. 1 herein)

who had dragged him into this litigation.30                If the Ld. MM would have considered all the material available with

her on record before issuing the notice of petition to the present appellant, then, I have

no hesitation in holding that she would have never passed such directions qua the

appellant. However, due to heavy work load and paucity of time available in MM's

Courts, it seems that all those facts appear to have lost sight of the Ld. MM accidently

while passing the impugned order qua the appellant herein. Thus, without going

through the entire material available on record, the impugned order was passed by

her.31                As a net result of the aforesaid discussion, present appeal is allowed

and the impugned order qua the appellant so far as it pertains to his summoning is setCA No.52/16          Sh. R K Anand   Vs. Mrs. Charu Chawla & Anr.                              Page No.13 / 14aside to that extent only.32                Application filed undersection 340CrPC be separated and registered

as miscellaneous application, as per rules, and it be tagged with the appeal file.



33                Copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for its perusal and

records.Announced in the
   open court on 
2nd  November, 2017
                                                  ( LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA)
                                     ASJ­04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS) South­East District
                                                       Saket Courts, New DelhiCA No.52/16          Sh. R K Anand   Vs. Mrs. Charu Chawla & Anr.                              Page No.14 / 14