Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a property issue following the divorce between the appellant and respondent No. 1. The appellant and respondent No. 1 were married in 1978, and after 15 years, the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant regarding the suit property, Kothi No. 84, Phase-IX, SAS Nagar (Mohali). The trial Court initially ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing her counterclaim based on the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. However, after the respondent filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty, which was granted, the appellant sought a permanent injunction to prevent the respondent from alienating the property. The trial Court granted a temporary injunction against dispossession, but this was later partly set aside by the lower appellate Court. The High Court vacated the injunction against dispossession, leading to the current appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the divorce decree had become final and did not provide for the appellant's right to residence or maintenance. While the court upheld the decision to vacate the injunction against alienation, it found merit in the appellant's argument regarding dispossession, stating that the respondent could not forcibly evict her without following legal procedures. Consequently, the court partially allowed the appeal, affirming the right of the respondent to evict the appellant in accordance with the law while rejecting the request to restrain alienation of the property.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Right to Residence - Entitlement to Injunction Against Alienation - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 - The court held that the appellant was not entitled to an injunction against alienation of the suit property as the decree of divorce did not provide for such a right. The appellant's claim was dismissed as there was no provision for maintenance or residence in the divorce decree (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was entitled to an injunction against the alienation of the suit property and protection from dispossession after the divorce.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, affirming that the respondent could evict the appellant in accordance with the law, while rejecting the request to restrain the alienation of the property. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act
- 1956
- Section 18
- Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955
- Section 13
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
