MEENA CHAUDHARY versus COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE AND ORS.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 18-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 507 
MEENA CHAUDHARY 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF DELHI POLICE AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8439-8440 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 
A 
B 
- ss.12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 - Suit filed by appellant for C 
protection of share in the matrimonial household and interim 
maintenance - During pendency of the suit, appellant filed 
writ petition - High Court in its writ jurisdiction declined to 
examine the disputed questions of fact as regards the claim 
1 of appellant about thl§Subsisting nature of her married life with 
D 
respondent no.4, but directed him to pay interim maintenance 
to the appellant -
Held: Unless and until the disputed 
questions of facts were determined one way or the other based 
on relevant legally acceptable material evidence, there was 
no scope for granting any other relief except the relief of E 
interim maintenance, which the High Court had granted in a 
sum of Rs.25,0001- per month - The disputed questions of 
fact could not have been examined in the writ proceedings; 
rather it could be appropriately examined by the Magistrate 
- However, suit filed by appellant was dismissed while she was 
F 
pursuing her remedies before the Supreme Court - Appellant 
1 is granted liberty to get the suit revived by filing appropriate 
application before the Magistrate. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1. Various claims of the Appellant as regards 
the subsistence of the marriage with Respondent No.4 as 
well as her other grievances involved determination of 
very seriously disputed questions of fact and unless and 
507 
G 
H 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 11 S.C.R. 
• 
A until such disputed questions of facts are determined one 
way or the other based on relevant legally acceptable 
material evidence, there is no scope for granting any 
other relief except the relief of interim maintenance, which 
the High Court decided to grant and ultimately granted 
. B in a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. [Para 9] (515-B-C] 
2. A detailed enquiry would be required to be made 
by the appropriate forum in order to give an authoritative 
pronouncement as to the existence or otherwise of the 
matrimonial relationship of the Appellant and 
C Respondent No.4. Such seriously disputed questions of 
fact could not have been examined in the writ 
proceedings. [Para 12] [516-E-F] 
3. The various disputed questions of fact which arise 
D for consideration in these appeals can be appropriately 
examined by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi if the appellant's suit is 
revived and disposed of on merits. Since the said course 
would be an appropriate course to put an end to the long 
E drawn litigation as between the Appellant and 
Respondent No.4, the Appellant can be granted liberty to 
get the Suit revived by filing an appropriate application 
before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House 
Courts, New Delhi. [Para 13] [517-C-E] 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
8439-8440 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 06.05.2009 in Letters 
Patent Appeal No. 64 of 2009 and the order dated 18.05.2009 
G in Review Petition No. 205 of 2009 of the Division Bench of 
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. 
Meena Chaudhary (Appellant-in-person) 
Pinky Anand, ASG, M.N. Krishnamani, Atul Jha, Sandeep, 
H 
• 
MEENA CHAUDHARY v. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI 
509 
POLICE 
Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Mohan Prasad Gupta (For Anil 
A 
Katiyar) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. In the 
present appeals the Appellant, who is a Gynaecologist by 
B 
profession and has appeared before us as a party-in-person, 
is aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of the High 
Court of Delhi dated 06.05.2009 in LPA No.64i2009 along with 
CM Nos. 1801,4625 & 4770 of 2009. 
2. The brief facts, which are required to be stated in order 
to appreciate and find a solution to eliminate the grievances 
c 
of the Appellant, are that the Appellant got married to 
Respondent No.4 herein in the year 1973 and thereafter, a son 
and a daughter were born out of the said wedlock in the years 
D 
1974 and 1977, respectively. Differences stated to have arisen 
as between the Appellant and Respondent No.4 with regard to 
their matrimonial affair and according to the Appellant, 
Respondent No.4 deserted her in the y

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.