Home > DV Judgements > DV Act and wife staying forcibly in Govt. Allotted quarters of Husband….Read further what happened :)

DV Act and wife staying forcibly in Govt. Allotted quarters of Husband….Read further what happened :)

Ifci Limited vs Narender Kumar on 17 August, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

1$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CONT.CAS(C) 520/2011

IFCI LIMITED ….. Petitioner/Relator Through: Mr. Dinkar Singh, Adv.

Versus

NARENDER KUMAR ….. Respondent/Alleged Contemnor

Through: Mr. Amandeep Joshi, Adv.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

ORDER

% 17.08.2011

1. This order is in continuation of the earlier order dated 21 st July, 2011. The counsel who was earlier appearing for the respondent / alleged contemnor states that he is no longer appearing in this matter and has returned the file. He however identifies the respondent / alleged contemnor and his wife Smt. Pushpa, present in Court in person.

2. The respondent / alleged contemnor appearing in person states that the Flat No.C-203, IFCI Staff Colony, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi is in occupation of his wife Smt. Pushpa and he himself was ousted from the said flat four years ago and has been residing at Faridabad for the last four years.

3. Smt. Pushpa appearing in person also confirms that the respondent / alleged contemnor is not residing in the said accommodation and states that he is residing with his parents. She also states that she has filed legal proceedings for maintenance and under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent / alleged contemnor and which proceedings are still pending. She further states that the respondent / alleged contemnor has intentionally given an undertaking in this Court to vacate the accommodation so as to oust her from the said accommodation.

4. The counsel who had appeared for the respondent / alleged contemnor on 7th February, 2011, states that he was not instructed of the said position when the undertaking was given on that date to vacate the accommodation within two weeks.

5. The counsel for the petitioner / relator invites attention to the order dated 25th February, 2011 in complaint case filed by Smt. Pushpa under the Domestic Violence Act, in which, it was clarified that there is no stay against the dispossession of Smt. Pushpa from the aforesaid accommodation. He also invites attention to an undertaking dated 7 th April, 2011 stated to have been given by Smt. Pushpa to vacate the accommodation before 31st May, 2011.

6. On enquiry, the counsel for the petitioner / relator informs that on vacation of the accommodation aforesaid, the payment of pension to the respondent / alleged contemnor of approximately `15,000/- to `17,000/- per month shall commence. Finding that in the order dated 25 th February, 2011 (supra), it is recorded that petitioner / relator is holding retiral benefits of about `6,00,000/- of the respondent / alleged contemnor, the status thereof was enquired. It is stated that the same are towards arrears of pension / computation pension and which would also become payable to the respondent / alleged contemnor immediately on delivery of possession of the accommodation aforesaid.

7. The respondent / alleged contemnor appearing in person, after understanding from the counsel who was earlier appearing for him, has stated that for the lapse committed by him in not informing to the Court on 7th February, 2011 that in fact it was his wife who was in possession, he is willing that all the arrears of `6,00,000/- or more which are due to him from petitioner / relator, be released directly to his wife Smt. Pushpa for her benefit and benefit of his daughter, who is of marriageable age, and which amount be taken into consideration by the Courts where the other proceedings between the respondent / alleged contemnor and his wife Smt. Pushpa are pending.

8. Smt. Pushpa contends that the said amount of `6,00,000/- or more would not get her alternate accommodation. She states that the alleged contemnor is only 50 years of age and has another eight years of service left and should be made to work so that she can continue in the official accommodation.

9. However, neither can any such direction be given specially in these proceedings nor can Smt. Pushpa be allowed to continue in official accommodation when the alleged contemnor has sought retirement.

10. In the facts and circumstances, it is deemed expedient to grant time till 30th September, 2011 to Smt. Pushpa to vacate the aforesaid accommodation. She states that besides herself and her daughter Ms. Yogita aged about 27 years, none else is in possession of the said house.

11. Accordingly, it is directed:

(i) Smt. Pushpa to vacate the accommodation aforesaid on or before 30th September, 2011;

(ii) If she fails to so vacate the accommodation, the SHO, Police Station Paschim Vihar is directed to have the said accommodation vacated latest by 7th October, 2011; (iii) Upon vacation of the said accommodation, whether voluntarily or through police, the petitioner / relator to release the entire amount of `6,00,000/- or more due to the respondent / alleged contemnor in favour of said Smt. Pushpa on or before 31 st October, 2011. It is clarified that the respondent / alleged contemnor having made the statement in Court, the release of the said amount in favour of Smt. Pushpa will not be dependent upon the respondent / alleged contemnor signing any document or applying for computation of pension as was contended. It was further clarified that the arrears if any of licence fee / rent due with respect to the said accommodation be not deducted from the said amount and are to be adjusted / deducted out of the pension due in future to the respondent / alleged contemnor. (iv) As far as the future pension payable to the respondent / alleged contemnor is concerned, the release thereof by the petitioner / relator shall be subject to orders of the Courts in the other proceedings filed by Smt. Pushpa against the respondent / alleged contemnor. In the said proceedings, regard be also had to the amount of `6,00,000/- or more to be received by Smt. Pushpa under this order.

12. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

AUGUST 17, 2011

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/51122/

Advertisements
Categories: DV Judgements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: