Niharika Ghosh @ Niharika Kundu vs Shankar Ghosh & Anr.

$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 06 May, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 4982/2023, CRL.M.A. 18955/2023, CRL.M.A.
18956/2023, CRL.M.A. 16394/2024 & CRL.M.A. 649/2025

NIHARIKA GHOSH @ NIHARIKA KUNDU .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Sood, Senior Advocate
with Mr. O.P. Gulabani, Mr. Pankhuri
Jain and Ms. Sanskriti Tiwari,
Advocates along with
petitioner-in-person

versus

SHANKAR GHOSH & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Inklee Roy Baroah, Advocate for
R-1 & R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The point raised in the present petition is a very short one.
2. Petitioner herein had filed a complaint under Section 12 Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and during the pendency of the
aforesaid petition, she filed an application for recalling of one earlier order
dated 25.11.2021 qua repair of the portion occupied by her and to provide her
with alternative accommodation in the same shared household.
3. Prayer of the aforesaid application reads as under: -
“In view of the above said facts and considering the totality of the
circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court, may
kindly be pleased to
(i) Recall the order dated 25.1 L2021 qua the repairs of the portion in
use and occupation of the aggrieved;
Signature Not Verified
1
CRL.M.C. 4982/2023

Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
11:29:50

(ii) Direct the respondent no. 1 to provide alternative accommodation of
similar in size and amenities in the same shared household;
(iii) Any other or further order/s in favour of the aggrieved may also be
passed in the interest of justice.”

4. According to petitioner, the portion in which she was residing was,
almost, inhabitable but according to her, there was another portion in the
shared household which was lying unoccupied and, therefore, she prayed that
she should be shifted to such alternate accommodation, albeit, situated in the
same shared household.
5. According to respondent, there was no other portion in the shared
household.
6. Fact remains that learned Trial Court, while deciding the application,
did not give any specific observation with respect to the aforesaid fact –
whether there is any alternate accommodation in the shared household or not,
and after taking note of the rival contentions, learned Trial Court thought it
appropriate that complainant be provided an alternate accommodation at
some other place outside her shared household. Relevant portion of the
aforesaid order reads as under: -
“It is interesting that respondent is ready to put complainant in alternate
accommodation at some other place, however, complainant is not ready
to vacate her shared household. In fact, this seems to be real bone of
contention between the parties. The objective of providing right to
residence to the wife under DV Act was that she should not be left
homeless by an action of the husband. In a situation like this and also
considering the long history of acrimony and dispute between the parties
on the same issue, I find it appropriate that complainant should be
provided an alternate accommodation at some other place outside of her
shared household. This is more so, as complainant is also pleading that
respondent commits violence upon her and also restricts water supply to
her of the property. When complainant will be put to the alternate
accommodation outside of her shared household, all these issues will
come to rest for once and all. I cannot pursue myself to agree with the
complainant that she should be put in the other portion available on the
Signature Not Verified
2
CRL.M.C. 4982/2023

Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
11:29:50

first floor of the property as the same is already in occupancy of the
tenants.

In the case of Ajay Kumar Jain Vs. Baljeet Kaur Jain 160 (2009) DLT
401 (DB), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also observed that 'a wife cannot
have right to live in a particular property and the same cannot become a
clog on the property denying the right of the husband to deal with the
property when he is willing to provide an alternate accommodation to
her. It was also held that wife cannot insist on residing in the same
property when husband offered to provide a suitable alternative
arrangement for her’.

In view of the observations and judicial pronouncement as discussed
above, this court is of the view that the offer given by respondent to put
complainant in alternate accommodation outside of her shared
household seems to be quiet just and reasonable. Respondent is hereby
directed to find a suitable accommodation in the same locality as that of
his house for residence of his wife within four weeks. Or otherwise,
complainant is at liberty to find suitable accommodation for herself on
.her own and respondent would give her Rs. 10,000/- per month towards
rent in lieu of alternate accommodation as per the prevailing market
rate. Respondent will pay at least three months rent in advance to
complainant.

Application is disposed off accordingly.
Put up for further proceedings on 08.09.2023.
Copy of this order be given as dasti.”

7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed by the
petitioner under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 and even such appeal has been dismissed by the learned Sessions
Court on 04.07.2023.
8. Such orders are under challenge.
9. The sole contention coming from the side of the petitioner is to the
effect that learned Trial Court has given a relief, which was never sought for.
10. Prayer clause has already been extracted above.

11. It is quite obvious that petitioner was, merely, interested in having an
“ alternate accommodation within the shared household ”.
12. If there was no alternate accommodation within the shared household,
Signature Not Verified
3
CRL.M.C. 4982/2023

Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
11:29:50

the application could have been dismissed, where the learned Trial Court has,
indirectly, asked her to leave her shared household which she never prayed or
wished.
13. Unfortunately, the learned Trial Court missed the aforesaid important
aspect of the case and has directed provision for suitable accommodation
outside the shared household .
14. Learned counsel for respondent, during course of the arguments,
submitted that though respondent did not have any alternate accommodation
within the shared household but she, in all fairness, admitted that there is no
specific observation in this regard in the impugned order.
15. In view of the above, since there is apparent illegality in the impugned
orders as learned Trial Court has gone beyond the scope of the application and
has given her relief which she never wanted and prayed, the impugned orders
dated 08.06.2023 and 04.07.2023 are hereby set aside and learned Trial Court
is requested to re-consider the aforesaid application, after giving due
opportunity of hearing to both the sides.
16. Present petition is accordingly disposed of in aforesaid terms.
17. It is, however, clarified that this Court has not given any observation
with respect to the merits of the abovesaid application and learned Trial Court
would be at liberty to decide the same, without being influenced or prejudiced
by any observation appearing hereinabove.
18. Pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.


(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
MAY 6, 2026/ dr/sy
Signature Not Verified
4
CRL.M.C. 4982/2023

Digitally Signed
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:08.05.2026
11:29:50