ASHOK KUMAR BHALLA Vs. ROOPA BHALLA
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Ashok Kumar Bhalla
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) VIDE order dated 11.07.2007 the trial court dismissed the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.
Aggrieved by that order the present petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside / quashing the order dated
11.07.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge has been filed.
(2.) THE respondents in this case moved a petition under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Smt. Roopa Bhalla, respondent
no. 1 and the petitioner Ashok Kumar Bhalla got married on 01.05.1987.
Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are their progeniture. After marriage Smt. Roopa
Bhalla came to her matrimonial house bearing No. E-188, Lajpat Nagar - I,
New Delhi. After some time their relations become strained. Respondents
are in possession of ground and first floors of the matrimonial house. In
the prayer clause of their petition they have made the following prayer :-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly pass a decree for declaration in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. i) Declaring that the petitioners are entitled to a separate residence the petitioner no. 1 being the wife of respondent and the petitioner no. 2 and 3 being the children of respondent. ii) Restraining the respondent, his family members, servants, attorneys, assignees, agents etc. from interfering in quiet peaceful possession and enjoyment of the matrimonial home of petitioner no. 1 being the ground floor of house bearing no. E-188, Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi more specifically shown in red in the Site Plan. iii) Restraining the respondent, his family members, servants, attorneys, assignees, agents etc. from dispossessing petitioners from the matrimonial home of petitioner no. 1 being the ground floor of house bearing no. E-188, Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi more specifically shown in red in the Site Plan. iv) Pass a decree, order and direction to the respondent to pay to petitioners no. 2 and 3 a sum of Rs. 8000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) each per month for their maintenance. v) Such order relief as this Hon'ble court may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be awarded."
During the pendency of this case, the petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, wherein it was pleaded
that the following partial cause of action has not arisen in favour of
the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as an
Officer in Central Bank of India at Jaipur. Thereafter, he was
transferred to Delhi and he started living with the respondents on the
ground floor though separately as the respondents are not in talking
terms with him. The second and third floor belong to his sisters. In July
2006 the respondents trespassed on the first floor of the property, removed the goods of petitioner Ashok Kumar Bhalla as well as his
sisters. The said portion does not belong to Ashok Kumar Bhalla.
Petitioner Ashok Kumar Bhalla is stated to be in complete exclusive
possession of the ground floor since July 2006 because the respondents
have started staying on the first floor. In this application it is prayed
that relief of injunction in respect of ground floor is liable to be
rejected and the interim stay order passed in favour of respondents is
liable to be vacated. It is also prayed that Local Commissioner should be
appointed in order to verify the contentions raised by the petitioner
Ashok Kumar Bhalla.
(3.) IN the reply the respondents explained that they are still in possession of ground floor and first floor.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.