Seema Bansal vs Durga Das Bansal

A.K. Pathak, J.

Caveat No. 920/2014:

Since caveator has appeared, caveat is discharged. CM Appl. No. 17275/2014 (exemption):

"Allowed, subject to all just exceptions."

Application is disposed of. FAO No. 311/2014 and CM Appl. No. 17274/2014 (stay) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are parents-in-law of appellant and parents of respondent No. 3. Appellant and respondent No. 3 are husband and wife. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are aged about 72 years. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for possession against the appellant and respondent No. 3, which is since pending for trial. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed praying therein that appellant and respondent No. 3 be restrained, by way of ad interim injunction, from transferring or creating any third party rights in any manner in respect of the ground floor of the suit property bearing No. BN-40, West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi? 110088 (hereinafter referred to as ''suit property'') as shown in red colour in site plan and further that appellant be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the portion of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and not to enter in the kitchen in possession of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It appears that there is marital discord between the appellant and respondent No. 3 resulting in police complaints. Appellant has filed a complaint in the Crime against Women Cell, which is pending consideration. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that appellant has also filed FIR under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against her brother-in-law (son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2). Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have claimed that suit property was their self acquired property and respondent No. 3 had no right, title or interest therein. Respondent No. 3 was living in the suit property as their son and after the marriage, appellant also started living in the suit property. Trial Court has considered the matter in detail and was, prima facie, of the view that suit property was a self acquired property of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Trial Court has noted that appellant (defendant No. 1) was in possession of portion shown in red colour along with common area shown in yellow colour, which also included kitchen. In order to avoid day to day disputes between the parties, trial Court has evolved a methodology, whereby appellant has been permitted to use a separate kitchen than the common kitchen used by the parties till now. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and appellant have been directed to use separate kitchens as shown in the site plan. Appellant has also been directed not to interfere in the peaceful possession of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the portion in their possession more particularly as shown in site plan as ''Mark B'', other than red colour portion, which is in the possession of appellant.

Aggrieved by this order, appellant has approached this Court. Her only grievance is that trial Court has erred in directing the appellant not to common kitchen but to use another kitchen, which according to her is a store. Photographs of both the kitchens have been placed on record at pages 78 and 79, respectively. It is the kitchen at page No. 78, which has been permitted by the trial Court to be used by the appellant. I am not in agreement with the Counsel for appellant that the same is not a kitchen. It is a small kitchen and not a store as alleged by the appellant. Since there is marital discord between the appellant and respondent No. 3, inasmuch as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are also not maintaining good relations with the appellant, inasmuch as criminal complaints have been filed, obviously, if respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and appellant are permitted to use the same kitchen, it will result in quarrels on trivial matters. Trial Court has, thus, rightly made provision of separate kitchen for the appellant. I do not find any justification to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.

Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous.