Umesh S v. Priti S

1. The present application has been preferred by the petitionerhusband seeking modification of this Court‟s earlier orders dated 29.10.2024 and 14.11.2024, passed in the above-captioned revision petition.

2. The modification is sought by the petitioner-husband, primarily on the ground that the residential property in question – a farmhouse situated at Green Avenue Lane, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – was a leased property, the lease whereof has since expired. It is the petitioner‟s case that in view of the expiry of the lease and the consequent obligation to vacate the said premises, the directions issued by this Court allowing the respondent-wife to continue residing therein have become unworkable. It is accordingly prayed that the said orders be suitably modified, and the respondent-wife be directed to shift to an alternate accommodation being offered by the petitioner, which is stated to be of a comparable standard and located in the same vicinity.

3. Before considering the relief sought in the present application, it is necessary to briefly recapitulate the findings of the learned courts below with respect to the respondent‟s right of residence and interim maintenance. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [hereafter „Magistrate‟], by order dated 14.02.2024, while adjudicating an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereafter „PWDV Act‟], directed the petitioner to pay a total amount of Rs. 8.30 lakhs per month to the respondent-wife – comprising Rs.

3.30 lakhs per month, which was being paid voluntarily by the petitioner herein towards all household and other expenses, and an additional amount of Rs. 5 lakhs per month towards her personal expenses. Insofar as residence was concerned, the learned Magistrate took note of the petitioner‟s contention that the farmhouse at Green Avenue Lane was a tenanted property, and its lease had already expired, in respect of which eviction notices had been received from the landlord. The learned Magistrate, while recognizing that the complainant-wife could not be compelled to vacate the matrimonial home, also held that she could not insist on residing in a particular property. Accordingly, three months‟ time was granted to her to consider the alternate accommodations suggested by the petitionerhusband and to apprise the Court of her decision.

4. The order of the learned Magistrate was assailed by both parties before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [hereafter „Sessions Court‟]. By a common judgment dated 09.09.2024, the learned Sessions Court upheld the order of the Magistrate and dismissed both the appeals bearing CA nos. 66/2024 and 83/2024. The learned Sessions Court held that while the wife could not claim a right to reside in any particular premises, the husband must first identify two accommodations of equivalent level, one for himself and one for the wife, and suggest the same to her.

5. When the matter was brought before this Court in CRL.REV.P. 1246/2024, this Court, by order dated 29.10.2024, issued notice on the revision petition and, as an interim measure, stayed the operation of the impugned orders of the courts below. However, this interim protection was made subject to two conditions – (i) that the respondent-wife would continue to reside in the farmhouse where she was then residing, and (ii) that the petitioner-husband would continue to pay Rs. 3.30 lakhs per month to her, as he had been doing earlier.

6. Subsequently, upon an application (being CRL.M.A. 34243/2024) filed by the respondent-wife seeking vacation of interim order dated 29.10.2024, this Court, by order dated 14.11.2024, clarified in the interim that the stay of operation of the impugned orders would subsist only so long as the petitioner continued to bear all expenses towards the upkeep, maintenance, and amenities of the farmhouse, including staff salaries, household expenses, repairs, and maintenance, and all other heads of expenditure necessary for the functioning of the household i.e. farmhouse where the parties are residing, in addition to the sum of Rs. 3.30 lakhs per month. These directions were issued in view of the wife‟s grievance that the sum of Rs. 3.30 lakhs per month being paid to her was not for her personal use, but for meeting household expenses and salaries of domestic staff.

7. It is against this backdrop that the present application for modification was filed in March 2025, the core premise of which is that the continuation of the respondent in the farmhouse, which is a leased property, is no longer feasible due to the expiry of the lease and the resultant obligation upon the petitioner to vacate the said premises.

8. It is the petitioner‟s case that upon expiry of the lease, the landlord, Mr. Ajay Sharma, had issued successive eviction notices dated 14.03.2023 and 01.08.2023 to the lessee company, M/s Asian Hotels (East) Ltd., in which the petitioner is a Director, calling upon it to vacate the premises. Faced with imminent eviction, the petitioner had moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereafter „CPC‟] before the learned Magistrate on 27.05.2023, seeking appropriate directions for both parties to take separate leased accommodations, and also placed on record a list of alternate residences for consideration by the respondent-wife. The petitioner-husband had thereafter filed a petition before this Court i.e. CM(M) 1486/2023, titled „Umesh S. v. Priti S.‟, seeking directions to the learned Magistrate to decide the said application. The Coordinate Bench of this Court on 13.09.2023 had accordingly directed the learned Magistrate to decide the same in accordance with law within one month, and also directed the respondent-wife that she may express her opinion on the offer made by the petitioner on the alternate accommodation. However, despite directions issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in order dated 13.09.2023, the said application remained undecided. Instead, while disposing of the application under Section 23 of the PWDV Act by order dated 14.02.2024, the learned Magistrate only observed that the wife may look into the alternate accommodations proposed by the petitioner within three months – a period which expired on 14.05.2024 without any compliance on her part. It is further pointed out that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the landlord of the said farmhouse instituted eviction proceedings against M/s Asian Hotels (East) Ltd. and the petitioner, being Civil Suit No. 4285/2024, titled ‘Ajay Sharma v. M/s Asian Hotels (East) Ltd. & Anr.‟, before the Court of the learned District Judge, Patiala House Courts, seeking recovery of possession of the said farmhouse. In the said proceedings, Asian Hotels (East) Ltd. filed its written statement, expressly admitting that the lease deed had expired and agreeing to vacate the premises. Consequent thereto, a decree of eviction came to be passed against the said company as well as the petitioner.

9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the passing of aforesaid decree of eviction has rendered it impossible for the petitioner to ensure continued occupation of the said farmhouse by the respondent-wife in terms of this Court‟s earlier interim orders dated 29.10.2024 and 14.11.2024, which necessitates modification of those orders to permit relocation of the respondent to an alternate residence of comparable standard. It is stated that during the pendency of the present application, the respondent-wife herself had preferred an appeal before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No. 868/2025, titled „Priti Saraf v. Ajay Sharma & Ors.‟, arising out of the aforesaid eviction proceedings. In the course of hearing of that matter, the respondent-wife, through her counsel and in her own presence before the Court, made a voluntary statement that she was ready and willing to vacate the suit premises, i.e., the very farmhouse in question, on or before 31.01.2026, and that she would continue to pay rent for the interregnum period. This undertaking was recorded and accepted by the Court vide order dated 15.09.2025, which, while granting her a period of four months to make alternate arrangements, made it clear that the said statement was without prejudice to her rights and contentions in the proceedings under the PWDV Act or any other proceedings between the parties.

10. As regards the issue of the respondent-wife‟s alternate accommodation, it has been the case of the petitioner that the farmhouse, where the parties were residing along with their two adult sons, was a leased property taken on rent by M/s Asian Hotels (East) Ltd., of which the petitioner is a Director. The rent of the said premises, as stated by the petitioner, was approximately Rs. 7 lakhs per month, which was being paid by the lessee. Owing to the marital discord between the parties and their inability to continue residing under one roof, the petitioner contends that he would now be required to secure two separate accommodations, one for himself and one for the respondent-wife, the aggregate rent of which would be roughly equivalent to the rent presently paid for the farmhouse in question. Accordingly, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to provide the respondent an independent accommodation on rent in the range of Rs. 3 to 3.[5] lakhs per month, commensurate with the standard of living previously enjoyed by her.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the petitioner‟s plea for modification of orders by relocating the respondent to alternate accommodation, terming it an attempt to forcibly evict her from her matrimonial home under the guise of the expiry of the lease. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner and his family possess several residential properties of their own, including a six-storey house in Kolkata, a holiday home in Shimla, a twobedroom apartment in Hong Kong, and a large mansion-like house in Kathmandu, Nepal, in addition to 1.[1] acres of land in Vasant Kunj, Delhi, reportedly purchased for construction of a 30,000 sq. ft. family residence. She contends that, given this background, the petitioner‟s insistence on relocating her to a rented accommodation of comparatively smaller size and lesser status is both unjust and vindictive, and is intended to degrade her dignity and standard of living. It has been contended by the respondent that she has lived in a lavish matrimonial home for over three decades, and that forcing her to move into a smaller 2–3 bedroom apartment would be grossly disproportionate to the standard of life she has been accustomed to.

12. These rival submissions thus bring the central question before this Court to whether, in light of the expiry of the lease of the residential farmhouse in question and the subsequent eviction decree passed by the concerned Court, and having regard to the petitioner‟s offer of alternate accommodation vis-à-vis the respondent‟s objections invoking her right of residence and dignity, the directions and interim order contained in the orders dated 29.10.2024 and 14.11.2024 warrant modification.

13. Having considered the material on record, this Court is of the view that the record reflects that pursuant to the decree of eviction passed in Civil Suit No. 4285/2024, titled „Ajay Sharma v. M/s Asian Hotels (East) Ltd. & Anr.‟, by the learned District Judge, Patiala House Courts, and in view of the subsequent order dated 15.09.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No. 868/2025, titled „Priti Saraf v. Ajay Sharma & Ors.‟, the respondent-wife has herself undertaken to vacate the farmhouse at 27-A, Green Avenue Lane, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, on or before 31.01.2026. Therefore, it is evident that the respondent-wife would require an alternate accommodation before the said date. The record clearly reflects that the petitioner-husband, much prior to the present application, had also filed an application before the learned Magistrate on 27.05.2023 under Section 151 of CPC, specifically seeking directions regarding alternate residences for both parties in view of the expiry of the lease of the farmhouse. He had also placed on record a list of proposed accommodations, having monthly rent of about Rs. 3-3.[5] lakhs, and apprised the learned Magistrate of the urgency caused by eviction notices dated 14.03.2023 and 01.08.2023. The said list included a 500 sq. yard four-bedroom property in Sarvodaya Enclave, a 500 sq. yard four-bedroom second-floor apartment in Neeti Bagh, and a 500 sq yard duplex property in Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi.

14. Despite a specific direction issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 13.09.2023 in CM(M) 1486/2023 requiring the learned Magistrate to adjudicate the application for alternate residence within one month, the said application remained undecided. Instead, while disposing of the application under Section 23 of the PWDV Act on 14.02.2024, the learned Magistrate merely granted the respondentwife three months to “look into” the accommodations suggested by the petitioner, without deciding the application itself. It is also apparent that even this direction requiring the respondent-wife to apprise the Court within three months was not complied with.