Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 869 (UTT)

Gulshan Arora v. Vijay Laxmi

2016-11-23

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(1) To summon the complete record pertaining to the case. (2) To issue the writ, order or direction setting aside the impugned order dated 17.11.2016 and, (3) To issue the writ, order or direction allowing the temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent by directing her not to remarry and further retraining her from misappropriating the properties in questions by any means either by selling or transferring them in the name of any other person by any means.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:- The petitioner was married to one Gita Rani in the year 1998. Out of the said wedlock two sons & a daughter were born, and the petitioner continuously lived with them. Initially, the petitioner use to run a shop in the name and style of M/s Chudimala Ratn Kendra, situated near Mansa Devi Ropeway. At the relevant time respondent use to come to the shop of the petitioner for purchases and used to live near the residence of the petitioner and hence slowly and steadily by the passage of time, the intimacy between both the parties increased and they came too near to each other. In the year 1995 the respondent expressed her desire to run a school and the petitioner acceded to such request & hence both of them started a school in the name of Dr. B.R.A. Public School in the vicinity of Mohalla Brahampuri, District Haridwar. The entire finance pertaining to management and running of the school was being paid by the petitioner out of his own resources. Thereafter, the petitioner appointed respondent as the Principal of the said school and started running in the premises of the building belonging to the brother of the respondent. Later on while the aforesaid school was being run, the courtship between the parties increased and respondent requested the petitioner to marry her, but since the petitioner was married earlier, hence he refused for that, but owing to the increased pressure of the respondent, the petitioner compromised with his wife and also sought the permission of the parents of the respondent and hence got married to respondent no. 27.05.1997 & since then the parties are living together as husband and wife. 27.05.1997 & since then the parties are living together as husband and wife. As a measure of security of the earlier relationship of the petitioner, it was agreed upon between the parties on 03.06.1997 that owing to the existence of the earlier marriage of the petitioner, respondent shall use the name of her father in the documents instead of using the name of the petitioner as her husband. After the aforesaid marriage, the petitioner got executed a sale deed of a plot situated at Subhash Nagar, Jwalapur belonging to him in favour of respondent & got the same constructed out of his own funds. Meanwhile, on 25.04.2000, a society in the name of the Swaran Vijya Modern School Society was also got registered in the office of Registrar and the school in the name and style of Swarn Vijya Modern Public School was started by the petitioner so as to meet the demands of the respondent. In the aforesaid society the name of the father of the respondent (now deceased) was mentioned as Patron, the respondent stood as Chairperson, the mother of the respondent was Treasurer and the petitioner held the post of Secretary. Owing to the aforesaid relationship between the petitioner and respondent, a property in the joint name of the parties was purchased on 18.06.2008 and the entire amount was paid by the petitioner. For the aforesaid purpose the petitioner obtained a loan from Punjab National Bank, Gurukul Kangir to the tune of Rupees Sixty Lakhs. A hotel in the name and style of M/s Hotel Mansa Devi Darshan was being run over the said property, but the same went in loss due to which the bank loan also got swollen due to the interest upon it and hence the same was sold out in the month of December, 2010. Out of the resale of the property the bank loan was duly paid and rest of the amount was retained by the petitioner. Later on the petitioner requested the respondent to get their marriage registered before the Registrar of Marriage, but respondent insisted that the same could be possible, if petitioner purchases a property in her name. It was for that purpose the petitioner, vide sale deed dated 12.12.2012 purchased a house situated in Govindpuri Colony in the name of the respondent and the entire payment was made by the petitioner out of his own pocket. It was for that purpose the petitioner, vide sale deed dated 12.12.2012 purchased a house situated in Govindpuri Colony in the name of the respondent and the entire payment was made by the petitioner out of his own pocket. After the said purchase, it was decided between the parties that a hotel be run in the said property and hence entire renovation work was done out from the funds out of the pocket of the petitioner and a hotel got started in the name and style of Hotel Fiesta and the same is still being run and managed by the petitioner. The petitioner has appointed staff and respondent also started helping the petitioner in its management. After the success of business of the aforesaid hotel, now it appears that respondent came in the influence of few outsiders due to which her intentions have got wrong and she started avoiding the talks for registration of marriage. It is alleged that respondent is going to contract marriage with some other person and is trying to misappropriate/sell the aforesaid two properties purchased by the petitioner in her name. Respondent has also threatened that she will not permit the petitioner to carry on the business of hotel in the said property and she will now sell it. It was hence the petitioner was forced to file a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent for the grant of permanent injunction restraining her to misappropriate the properties in question and further restraining her to marry elsewhere. The aforesaid suit was registered as O.S. No. 278 of 2016 titled as Gulshan Arora vs. Vijay Laxmi. Along with the aforesaid plaint, the petitioner also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the grant of temporary injunction along with a detailed affidavit and the requisite documents. The aforesaid suit alongwith the application for temporary injunction came up before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar on 17.11.2016 and vide order dated 17.11.2016 learned Civil Judge instead of granting temporary injunction has cursorily issued notices to the respondent. Hence, this writ petition. 3. I am of the clear view that in Writ Petition filed under Section 226/227 of the Constitution of India, no direction can be issued to the party either to marry or not to remarry. This prayer is rejected. Hence, this writ petition. 3. I am of the clear view that in Writ Petition filed under Section 226/227 of the Constitution of India, no direction can be issued to the party either to marry or not to remarry. This prayer is rejected. So far as prayer of the petitioner for restraining the respondent from misappropriating the properties in question by any means either by selling or transferring them in the name of any other person by any means is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the same relief, O.S. No. 278 of 2016 for grant of permanent injunction is filed by the petitioner. Alongwith the said suit the petitioner has also filed application 7C-2 for temporary injunction, which is pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar and in which 28.11.2016 is fixed for objection/disposal of the said application. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar should have considered the application of the petitioner on the same day, as there was urgency in the matter, but instead of doing so, he has fixed the case on 28.11.2016 for objection/disposal. 5. I have considered the submission and also gone through the writ petition. In the facts & circumstances of the case, before passing this order, the Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the other side. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances that has been brought on record, I think that no relief, as prayed by the petitioner, can be granted, except to direct the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar to decide the Application 7C-2 moved by the petitioner. Accordingly, I direct the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar to decide the Application 7C-2 moved by the petitioner either on 28.11.2016 or within a period of one week from that day. 6. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.