Restraint Orders Passed In Domestic Violence Complaint Would Not Bar Maintainability Of Partition Suit: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court observed that restraint orders passed in proceedings under Domestice Violence Act would not bar the maintainability of a suit for partition.
The Court observed thus in a petition filed against the order passed by the Trial Court that dismissed an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said, “With respect to the contention of the defendant no.3 that she is residing alone in the suit property and there are orders of the DV Court dated 17.12.2016, 28.02.2017 and 27.07.2017 restraining plaintiff, defendant nos.1 and 2 from visiting the suit property; and as per defendant no.3 the same evidences that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property, can also not be a ground for dismissing the partition suit at the threshold.”
The petitioner, Nidhi Jain appeared in person while none appeared for the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The petitioner was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a partition suit in 2019 seeking partition of the property bearing no. 237, Atulya Apartments, Sector 18-B, Dwarka, New Delhi (‘suit property’). The defendant filed an application under Section 151 CPC in 2020 seeking dismissal of the partition suit on the ground of concealment by the plaintiff of the orders passed by the MM (Mahila Court), Dwarka Courts (DV Court), in CC No. 45524/2016 (DV Proceedings) initiated by the defendant.
Thereafter, the defendant filed another application under Section 151 CPC in 2022 seeking disposal of the earlier application filed in 2020. The Trial Court vide an order, after allowing the application for early hearing, dismissed the Section 151 CPC application in 2023 seeking dismissal of the partition suit. Hence, the defendant was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above context noted, “It would also be relevant to note that the contents of the order dated 06.02.2016 passed by the DV Court, which records the statement of the defendant no.3 that she is willing and has no objection if the plaintiff, defendant nos. 1 and 2 reside with her in the suit property. The said admission of the defendant no.3 was recorded by the DV Court while disposing off an application filed by the plaintiff, defendant nos. 1 and 2 for vacating the suit property and to shift in an alternative accommodation.”
The Court said that the determination of the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC by the Trial Court would be on its own merits, in accordance with law and issue of the operation of the interim orders passed by the D.V. Court would be duly considered by the Trial Court keeping in view the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414.
“This Court, is therefore, unable to accept the contention of the defendant no.3 especially viewed in the background of the statement made by defendant no.3 before the same DV Court on 06.02.2016. … This Court, therefore, finds no infirmity in the impugned order dismissing the application filed by the defendant no.3 under Section 151 CPC, dated 08.09.2020.”, observed the Court.
The Court referred to the aforementioned case wherein the Supreme Court authoritatively held that proceedings under the DV Act cannot act as an embargo in civil proceedings.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title- Nidhi Jain v. Rani Jain & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:8411)
