VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2014 › High Court of Delhi

Natasha Kohli v. Kum Kum Talwar & Anr

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
21 July 2014
Bench
Rajiv Sahai Endlawauthor
Case no.
FAO(OS) 74/2014

Judgment

order as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

JULY 21, 2014 pk

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 12.05.2014 % Judgment Pronounced on: 21.07.2014 + FAO(OS) 74 OF 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: NATASHA KOHLI ... APPELLANT Through: Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Ms. Anu Bagai and Mr.Bhuvan Mishra, Advocates VERSUS KUM KUM TALWAR & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Satvik Verma, Mr. Ankur Mahindroo and Mr. Apurv Ranjan, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW G. ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. The present appeal has been preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 against the Orders dated 20.12.2013, 10.01.2014 and 24.01.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No.20865/2013, I.A. No.530/2014 and R.A. No.18/2014 respectively in CS (OS) No. 1576/2013. 2. The appellant herein is the defendant in the Suit. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as the defendant and the respondents as plaintiffs. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the defendant on 14.11.1994 married one Manmohan Kohli, (hereinafter referred to as Mr.Kohli) and a son named Rishab is born to them. Due to marital discord between Mr.Kohli and defendant, CS(OS) No.1321/2006 was filed by the defendant in June, 2006 for permanent and mandatory injunction restraining Mr.Kohli from dispossessing her from the house bearing H.No.15A, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit house). 4. Various interim orders came to be passed in the said suit with regard to the possession of the suit house and ultimately by order dated 21.04.2010, there was a direction that the defendant shall not interfere with the main building where Mr.Kohli and his son resided. 5. The defendant filed FAO(OS) No.303-306/2010, challenging the said order dated 24.01.2010 and the Division Bench of this Court, in order to maintain some semblance of peace in the matrimonial home, directed vide order dated 24.09.2010 that except for the master bedroom and the mezzanine attached therein, defendant is entitled to use the remaining portion of the main house. Owing to the fact that the belongings of the defendant are stored in the Outhouse/Annexe/Guest room, the Division Bench also permitted the defendant to use the same. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition was disposed of vide order dated 02.03.2012, declining to interfere and requesting this Court to dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year. The said suit is still pending. 6. While so, Mr. Kohli suffered brain haemorrhage on 29.07.2013 and was hospitalised in Sri Ganga Ram Hospital at New Delhi. 7. At this stage, a fresh suit being CS (OS) No.1576/2013 (out of which the present appeal arises) came to be filed by the real sisters of Mr.Kohli alleging that Mr.Kohli gets highly perturbed and traumatised by the sight of the defendant and that her visits to the hospital are causing undue hardship and harm to physical and mental health of Mr.Kohli and also causing danger to his life. Thus, they sought a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner mentally harassing Mr. Kohli and/or physically causing any harm to Mr.Kohli by coming anywhere near Mr.Kohli either at the hospital or after he returns home. They also sought injunction restraining the defendant from in any way interacting or communicating with Mr.Kohli either directly or indirectly. 8. Having regard to the fact that the defendant had undertaken before this Court that she would not visit Mr.Kohli in the hospital provided their son is allowed to visit his father and the medical records are provided to the defendant in order to take a second opinion on the condition of Mr.Kohli, the learned Single Judge disposed of CS(OS) No.1576/2013 on 22.08.2013 on the following terms

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.