HC: Domestic Violence Act cannot be used as a ploy by son to claim father’s property on the strength of wife’s right of residence

By Nandini Chaturvedi

A Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice Prathiba M Singh of Delhi High Court has on account of Aarti Sharma and Anr v. Ganga Saran, made obviously the arrangements of Domestic Violence Act, being social government assistance enactment, can’t be utilised by a child as a ploy to either guarantee a squarely in his dad’s property or to hold ownership of the equivalent on the strength of his better half’s right of home.

Verifiable Background

 The current second allure has been recorded testing the reviled Order passed by the ld. ADJ (North-east), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi emerging out of the underlying request of the Trial Court. The preliminary court had permitted the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC and proclaimed the suit. The First Appellate Court excused the allure testing the said judgment/order passed by the Trial Court. The foundation of the case is that the dad had recorded a suit against his child and girl in-law looking for an announcement of Permanent order against them subsequently limiting them from arranging off the suit property. It was consequently his case that being the proprietor of the property, a long-lasting directive was looked for considering different questions among him and the respondents being his child and girl in-law.

Then again, it was the situation of the litigants that the property being referred to was bought from the joint family reserve and that it was produced out of the offer of the prior property, to which he had a right, something which doesn’t solely have a place with the dad. The Court held that, “The decisions of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court don’t warrant impedance in these procedures. Notwithstanding, to the extent that the dependence on the judgment in SR Batra (supra) is concerned, unmistakably the said judgment isn’t material to current realities of the case, and has regardless been overruled by the judgment in Satish Chandra Ahuja (supra). The dependence on the said judgment was inappropriate both by the Trial Court just as the Appellate Court.