Login For Lawyers Home Consult a lawyer Flat fee services About Blog Judgements Careers Contact Us Snippet Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Legal Topics
Neelam Gupta Vs Mahipal Sharan Gupta
Recent Post

Get Legato App on your mobile.

Neelam Gupta Vs Mahipal Sharan Gupta
Neelam Gupta Vs Mahipal Sharan Gupta

Facts of the Case

This appeal has been filed before the Honorable Supreme Court pursing to the order passed by the High Court of Delhi wherein the order that was passed by the Mahila court affirmed which earlier was denied after the instituting the proceeding of the matter. The order that was affirmed with the confirmation of the Mahila court was of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class where the complaint was lodged pursuing to the provision of the Domestic Violence under the Protection of the Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.  The matter has its inception that was submitted to the court by the court where the first complaint filed and the additional facts were submitted by the appellate courts wherein it was stated that the problem started with the history that is one the cause to consider for the correct flow of the matter.

The history is something that the respondent herein; Sh. Mahipal Gupta was married to Geeta Gupta, and their marriage was solemnized and registered as per the Hindu Marriage Act, and the respondent herein had two children out of the first wedlock. The respondent’s two children were a son named Arava Gupta, and the other was a daughter named Garima Gupta. The respondent lost his wife Geeta, and due to the sad demise of the first wife, he decided to get married again. The respondent herein got married to the appellant herein, Neelam Gupta. The couple was residing in the same house with their kids, as the house was owned by the first wife of the respondent. The appellant herein had problems in her relationship with the husband, Mahipal Gupta. The appellant then filed the suit with the court to seek protection of her rights. Further, she also claimed the right to the residence while in such suit under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The appellant herein stated that the right of the property under the shared household should be allowed by the court.

The suit that was filed in the Trial court was heard for a time as due and then the Learned Single Judge of the Trial Court allowing the appellant to have such right specified that the women have the right under the Act and no person can violate such provision of law.  The appellant herein filed a civil suit with the relief which was that the husband should be stopped from taking the property or taking away the right of the possession of the property of her residence, wherein the court after due hearing the matter filed the declaratory order that the injunction will be executed on the husband from committing any act wherein to disposes of the wife from the property. When the matter was appealed in the High Court, the appellant then had two protections from the order of the courts, one under the DV Act and other under the injunction suit filed by the appellant. Further, as the suit was filed in the High Court pleading for a decree of the partition of the property and that suit was filed by Arava Gupta the son of the appellant from the first wife and the respondent herein Sh. Mahipal Gupta which by the due decree of the High Court was made executable against the earlier order passed by the other court. The Court decided the matter of concern was not that of the premises of specific location but it was regarding the allowance as a right of residence or any residence with the respondent in the shared interest unless the husband of the wife is ready to provide the alternative residence to the wife. The appeal later was made to the Mahila court which later after due hearing set aside the matter of the High Court providing the rationale that the residence allowed to the wife should be any alternative as per the law but should be allowed to live in the residence in which she is comfortable, and that equals here standard of living as per the life before such shift.  The Mahila Court keeping in the details of the other facts decided that the court should allow the respondent herein (the husband or wife) should provide her with the maintenance of the INR 15, 000/- per month and provide her with the residence of the same standard as to her lifestyle previous to marriage.

Issues of the Case

  1. Whether the relief provided under the DV Act and injection suit valid?
  2. Whether the interpretation of the lower Court applicable?
  3. Whether the decision of the High Court valid?
  4. Whether the Mahila Court has the right to set aside the order of the High Court?
  5. Whether the observation and rationale of the Mahila Court valid?


The Honorable Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsels representing both the parties in the matter above and considering the facts and the precedents submitted and established by the Honorable Judges to support the prayers and pleadings of the parties in the matter above states its observation herein that the court directs the appellant and the respondent herein to file for divorce under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as the fresh proceeding. The court directs that the appellant as after the due process of the hearing they should vacate the apartment and hand over the possession to the owner of the house that means the respondents as per the directions of the court. The respondent herein should pay the appellant the appropriate sum of money as the direction made in this behalf or deposit the same with the registry of the court. The court also directed that there should be the amount of sale value to be given to the appellant after the second motion is in the effect of the proceeding under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court is of the observation that the couple should be allowed to mutually conclude the divorce, but the same should be done in front of the court.

The court is in the final observation states that as the decision of the sale of the apartment have been concluded, so the worth of the property the respondent will be liable to pay the appellant the share amounting up to 1/3rd of the consideration as permanent alimony in the matter of divorce if any decision taken by the respondent with regards to the apartment should have an effect on the appellant with regards to either the possession or value in consideration.

The following direction that has been provided to apply mutatis mutandis to the matter above with the interpretation of the law as decided. The above appeal hence stands disposed with no order as to cost.

All Comments