M vs VIJAYPREET SINGH LAMBA & ORS.

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 1441/2022 & CM APPLs. 56780/2022 & 56781/2022
M ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Trideep Pais, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Naomi Chandra and Ms. Gargi Sethi, Advocates with petitioner in person.
Mob: 9818282840
Email: adv.amitkumar@gmail.com
versus

VIJAYPREET SINGH LAMBA & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for R-
1.
Mob: 9810118929
Email:legalconsultants245@gmail.com
Ms. Urvi Mohan, Advocate for R-2 and 3 with R-2 in person.
Email: chambersurvimohan@gmail.com
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD with Mr. Yash Upadhyay, Advocate, Mr. Siddhant Dutt and Ms. Mahak, Advocates for R-4 with SHO Malviya Nagar.
Mobile: 9891363718
Email: anujaggarwalascgnctd@gmail.com

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
J U D G M E N T
14.05.2024
MINI PUSHKARNA, J:

1. The present petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the protection order dated 2nd November, 2022 passed by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (“MM”)-03, Mahila Court (South District), Saket Courts in Complaint No. 1703/2022. By way of the said protection order, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had been restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from her matrimonial home, i.e., C-140, 3rd Floor, Sarvodya Enclave, New Delhi, without following the due process of law, until further orders.
2. The 3rd floor of the petitioner’s matrimonial home consists of four bedrooms with attached bathrooms, a drawing room, one lobby and a kitchen. The present contempt petition has been filed on the ground that despite the aforesaid protection order, which was served on all the respondents, the petitioner was dispossessed from two bed rooms on the 3rd floor on 23rd December, 2022. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 locked the two bedrooms, and removed the belongings of the petitioner and her minor son from the two bedrooms.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the complaint filed by the petitioner under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), wherein it has categorically been stated that the petitioner was occupying the whole of the third floor in the matrimonial home. Relevant portion, as relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
8.6 That the respondent number 1 to 5 are members of the joint family residing in the same shared household. The complainant and the respondent number 1 (husband) are residing at the 3rd Floor of C-140, Sarvodya Enclave, New Delhi having 4(Four) bedrooms with attached bathrooms, 1(one) drawing room, 1(one) Lobby and 1(one) kitchen i.e. the Matrimonial Home of the complainant which is also the “Shared Household” in terms of the definition under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act”). The respondent number 2 and 3 (parents-in-law) are residing at the Ground Floor of the matrimonial home i.e. the Shared Household. The respondent number 4 and 5 are residing at the First Floor of the Matrimonial Home.

xxx xxx xxx

8.12 …………..It is submitted that the complainant is having moderate income, (for the reasons mentioned in detail in the below Paras), and the same is not sufficient to take a house on rent in the same locality as comparable to the matrimonial home of the complainant having 4(Four) bedrooms with attached bathrooms, 1(one) drawing room, 1 (one) Lobby and 1(one) Kitchen, to which the complainant and her son are accustomed.

xxx xxx xxx

8.20 Since the complainant is residing at the 3rd Floor of the shared household having separate entry and exit with lift, therefore no inconvenience whatsoever has ever been caused to the respondent number 2 and 3……………

xxx xxx xxx”

3.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had tried to mislead this Court by wrongly submitting that their middle son, Mr. Kanwalpreet Singh Lamba, resides with them. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the divorce petition filed by the said son, wherein, the address of the said son, has been shown to be in Jangpura Extension and not Sarvodya Enclave.
3.2 He further submits that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have also wrongly submitted in their reply that the petitioner resides with her husband and minor child only in two bedrooms, out of the four bedrooms existing on the third floor. Whereas, the entire third floor, has been in possession of the petitioner, along with her husband and minor son. For this purpose, he draws the attention of this Court to the complaint filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3, wherein, they have admitted that the petitioner along with her husband and child has been staying on the entire third floor of the matrimonial home.
3.3 He also draws the attention of this Court to the letter dated 24th November, 2022 written by the husband of the petitioner to the SHO of the local police station, wherein, the husband of the petitioner has also stated that he stays on the third floor of the said house along with his wife and child.
3.4 Thus, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been residing on the entire third floor of the matrimonial home, for which the protection order has been issued. Therefore, the respondents have committed gross violation of the protection order by dispossessing the petitioner from two rooms of the said floor, which is contemptuous in nature.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits, that the two rooms that had earlier been locked by the respondents, were directed to be opened by this Court and possession of the same is now with the petitioner.
4.1 It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that prior to the protection order dated 2nd November, 2022, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 had sent a legal notice dated 6th October, 2022 to the petitioner, wherein, it was clearly stated that the petitioner along with her husband was allowed to use only two bedrooms with attached baths, as well as the common area, on the third floor.
4.2 Thus, it is submitted that even prior to the aforesaid protection order, it was the clear stand of the respondents that the petitioner had been allowed to use only two bedrooms on the third floor. It is submitted that the said protection order dated 2nd November, 2022 has been obtained on the basis of the legal notice dated 6th October, 2022 sent by the respondent nos. 2 and 3, containing clear averment as regards use of only two bedrooms on the third floor by the petitioner.
4.3 It is further submitted that the petitioner was never dispossessed of her matrimonial home and the protection order has not been violated.
4.4 Though, their middle son, i.e., Mr. Kanwalpreet Singh Lamba, was earlier staying separately, he now resides with the respondents. It is submitted that he suffers from various mental ailments and requires to be looked after.
4.5 Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the inspection report dated 01st February, 2023 of the police, wherein, the police has stated, that it opened the two locked bedrooms of the third floor in the presence of the parties. Articles of the respondents were found in the said rooms, which fact was not disputed by the petitioner.
4.6 It is further submitted that the respondents have expressed their unconditional apology for any act that may be considered as violating the protection order passed in favour of the petitioner.
5. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record, at the outset, this Court notes that by order dated 2nd November, 2022, the learned MM (Mahila Court) had granted protection order in favour of the petitioner, in the following manner:
“xxx xxx xxx
Heard, keeping in view that it is the duty of this court to protect the interest of aggrieved, therefore, protection order is passed in favour of complainant. Accordingly, respondents are restrained from dispossessing the complaint from the premises where complainant is presently residing (C-140, IIIrd Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi) without following due process of law till further orders.

At this stage, it is also pleaded by complainant that respondents are causing hindrance in the way of service providers and do not let them come on the third floor of the property where complainant is residing. It is further submitted that complainant is full time practicing advocate and she finds it very difficult to manage her day to day household chores in the absence of maid facilities. Complainant has further clarified that she will bear the salary of maid /service providers and prayed that respondents be restrained from creating any hindrance to the same. In view of the submissions made, respondents are restrained from creating any hindrance in the way of maid /service providers of complainant to access the matrimonial home of the complainant i.e. C-140, IIIrd Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
6. Reading of the aforesaid order indicates that a protection order had been passed in favour of the petitioner, thereby issuing directions to respondents, restraining them from dispossessing the petitioner from the third floor of her matrimonial home, wherein, the petitioner was stated to be residing.
7. On the one hand, it is the case of the petitioner that she had been in possession of the entire third floor of the property. On the other hand, the case put forth by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 is that two bedrooms of the third floor were in their possession. In this regard, the legal notice for eviction dated 6th October, 2022 issued by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
2. That you the addressee No. 1 is the son of my client and got married with addressee No. 2 on 26.02.2012 and after marriage my client allowed you to use two rooms with attached bath on the third floor of the said property out of love and affection without any monetary consideration.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

8. This Court takes notice of the fact that the aforesaid eviction notice was taken into consideration, at the time of issuance of protection order in favour of the petitioner. Relevant portion of order dated 02nd November, 2022, is extracted as below:
“xxx xxx xxx

At this stage, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for complainant that complainant is currently residing on the third floor of the property belonging to respondents bearing no. C-140, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi. Further, complainant has strong apprehension that respondents might dispossess the complainant from the premises where she is presently residing. She further stated that eviction notice has already been served upon her on 06.10.2022. She has accordingly prayed that protection order be passed in favour of complainant.

xxx xxx xxx”

9. This Court also takes note of the inspection report dated 01st February, 2023, that has been filed on behalf of SHO, Police Station, Malviya Nagar, wherein it is stated as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
1. That it is most respectfully submitted that in compliance of the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court. The disputed two rooms of third floor of the property No. C-140, 3rd Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi were inspected in the presence of the petitioner viz Mrs. Hena Lamba, Respondent No. 2 & 3 viz Mr. S.S. Lamba & Mrs. Manjit Kaur Lamba, respectively. The inspection proceedings were also videographed. A public person namely Mr. Manjeet Singh R/O D-300, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi was called to join the proceedings as a public witness. Later, the room no. 1 (kids room as per the petitioner) was also opened by Respondent No. 02 i.e. Mr. S.S. Lamba who had 3 keys set of the said room.

Below mentioned articles were found in Room No. 1:-
a) Double bed with double bed mattress.
b) A/C (Daikin).
c) Foot massager.
d) Philips room heater (Oil)
e) Water geyser (In attached bathroom)
f) Misc. electrical articles (In attached bathroom)
g) Wall mounted wooden Almirah, in damaged condition due to termite having two plastic boxes with papers, albums, 3 briefcases.

h) Wooden cupboard (dressing) with wall mounted glass.
Ownership of all the articles found in room no. 01 was claimed by the Respondent No. 03 i.e. Mrs. Manjit Kaur Lamba and the petitioner did not object to her claim.

xxx xxx xxx

3. That the inspection of the room no. 2 (Utility room as per the petitioner) was also conducted, which was opened by the respondent no. 2 i.e. Mr. S.S. Lamba and he had 3 key set of the said room. Below mentioned articles were found in room no. 2:-

a) Double bed with double bed mattress and 2 pillows.
b) LED TV (Samsung).
c) A/C (Daikin).
d) Wall mounted mirror.
e) One Flower Vase (Mud made)
f) Wall mounted Cupboard- containing 5 set of Men’s suit, 5 Sarees, One briefcase, 4 blue colour bags containing files.

g) One water geyser (In attached bathroom)

Ownership of all the articles found in room no. 2 was claimed by the Respondent No. 03 i.e. Mrs. Manjit Kaur Lamba and petitioner did not raise any objection to her claim.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. Reading of the aforesaid inspection report shows that upon opening of the two disputed rooms, ownership of the articles found therein, was claimed by respondent nos. 2 and 3, which was not disputed by the petitioner.
11. Without adverting to the divergent claims made by the parties, it is relevant to note that by order dated 16th January, 2023, this Court had directed the opening of the two locked bedrooms, which were directed to be freely accessible to the petitioner and her child, for their use and enjoyment uninterruptedly and at all times. The relevant portion of the order dated 16th January, 2023, reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx

8. It is further agreed between the parties that, without prejudice to the rival contentions of the parties as regards the status of the possession of the two rooms as on 23.12.2022 and without any expression on the merits of the stand taken by the parties; in order to facilitate the mediation between the parties, room no.1 and room no.2 as identified in status report shall be immediately opened by the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 and will be freely accessible to the Petitioner and her child for their use and enjoyment uninterruptedly and at all times. The said rooms shall not be locked by either party.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

12. Thus, pursuant to the directions of this Court, the two bedrooms are now accessible to the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has confirmed the fact that the entire third floor is now in possession and use of the petitioner.
13. This Court takes note of the unconditional apology that has been submitted on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 before this Court.
14. The Court cannot go into the disputed questions as regards the divergent claims of the parties or the veracity of their claims in the present proceedings. The undisputed fact is that as of today, pursuant to directions of this Court, the possession of the entire third floor of the matrimonial home, is with the petitioner, along with her husband and minor child. Thus, in terms of the protection order dated 2nd November, 2022, the petitioner continues to be in possession of the entire third floor of the matrimonial home and she has not been dispossessed from therein.
15. This Court in the present proceedings, which are in the nature of contempt proceedings, is concerned with the compliance of the various judicial orders and to ensure that the dignity of the Courts are upheld and the orders passed by Courts are not willfully violated in any manner. Once the orders passed by the Court are complied with and bonafide of the parties is shown, then there is no occasion to proceed in contempt against the parties who have been alleged to have violated the orders of the Court.
16. Thus, Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan Versus Tarun Bajaj and Others1, has held as follows:

“xxx xxx xxx

12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is “wilful”. The word “wilful” introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one’s state of mind. “Wilful” means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a “bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely”. Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. “Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct.

xxx xxx xxx”

17. Further, this Court will also not adjudicate on any disputed questions of facts under contempt jurisdiction. Thus, this Court in the case of Indus Towers Limited Versus Quadrant Televentures Limited2, has held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx

33. In any case, while dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigour when disputed questions of facts are involved. The element of intention is an undisputedly essential ingredient for commission of a civil contempt of an order of the Court. Therefore, in view of the disputed questions qua the proceedings, it cannot be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the Respondent No. 1 has committed deliberate or willful breach or disobedience of the aforesaid order. It is also a matter of fact that much water has flown under the bridge since the interim order against which the contempt has been sought was sought to be vacated and the same was transferred by this Court to the arbitrator and was disposed of by making an alteration to the security amount. Subsequently, the arbitrator passed the final award which again has been challenged by the parties.
xxx xxx xxx”
(emphasis supplied)
18. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioner continues to be in possession of third floor of the matrimonial home, in compliance of the protection order dated 02nd November, 2022 passed under DV proceedings, no further orders are required to be passed in the present proceedings.
19. The respondents are directed to comply with the protection order dated 2nd November, 2022 passed by the learned MM (Mahila Court), in its true letter and spirit.
20. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.

(MINI PUSHKARNA)
JUDGE
MAY 14, 2024/ak
1 (2014) 16 SCC 204
2 2023 SCC OnLine Del 684
—————

————————————————————

—————

————————————————————

CONT.CAS(C) 1441/2022 Page 1 of 11