Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bharati Rajesh Bhave, filed an appeal against an order passed by the trial judge on 3rd October 2015, which allowed a notice of motion filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 (her father-in-law and mother-in-law) directing her to quit the suit flat along with her son and all her belongings within two months. The appellant was married to respondent no. 3, who is the son of respondent nos. 1 and 2, and had been residing in the suit property as her matrimonial home. The appellant contended that the suit property was purchased jointly by her husband and respondent no. 1, though it stood in the name of respondent no. 1 exclusively. She also submitted that her husband had filed a false affidavit against her to support his parents. The appellant argued that the impugned order was in the nature of a final decree at the notice of motion stage and that she and her son could not be directed to vacate the premises, especially since she had no other place to go. She had already filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Vikhroli, which was pending. The respondents supported the trial court's order, producing the share certificate to show that the flat was purchased by respondent no. 1 as his self-acquired property when the appellant's husband was only seven years old. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the trial court's order directing the appellant to vacate the suit flat at the notice of motion stage was in the nature of a final decree and could not be sustained. The court noted that the appellant had a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in her favor. The High Court stayed the impugned order and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Right to Residence - Matrimonial Home - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The appellant, a married woman, was directed by the trial court to vacate the suit flat along with her son within two months. The High Court held that such an order at the notice of motion stage was in the nature of a final decree and could not be sustained. The appellant had filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act which was pending, and she had no other premises to reside. The court stayed the eviction order and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court could pass an order directing the appellant to quit the suit flat at the notice of motion stage, which is in the nature of a final decree, and whether the appellant has a right to reside in the matrimonial home pending proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.
Final Decision
The High Court stayed the impugned order dated 3rd October 2015 and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Right to residence in matrimonial home
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- Interim relief not to be final decree
- Prima facie case for stay
