Case Note & Summary
The petitioner-wife challenged a part of the order of the learned Judge, 2nd Family Court, Mumbai, dated 15th June 2010, which did not restrain the respondent-husband from entering the matrimonial home and allowed him to reside therein. The parties have a large matrimonial home consisting of 5 flats on the 13th and 14th floors, as well as other residential flats and an earlier matrimonial home. The court considered the wife's application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking exclusive possession. The Family Court allowed both parties to reside in the matrimonial home. The High Court upheld this order, holding that the husband has a right to reside in the shared household and the wife cannot claim exclusive possession. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Domestic Violence - Right to Residence - Section 19 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The wife challenged the order of the Family Court which allowed the husband to reside in the matrimonial home. The court held that the husband has a right to reside in the shared household and the wife cannot claim exclusive possession. The order directing both parties to reside in the matrimonial home was upheld. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court erred in not restraining the husband from entering the matrimonial home and allowing him to reside therein, thereby compelling the wife to share the residence with him.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Family Court order allowing both parties to reside in the matrimonial home.
Law Points
- Right of residence
- shared household
- domestic violence
- interim relief
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 56
Writ Petition No.6625 of 2010
Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Edith Dey and Mrs. Mrunalini Deshmukh for Petitioner; Mr. Vaibhav Krishna i/by M/s. Juris Consultes for Respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging part of Family Court order allowing husband to enter and reside in matrimonial home.
Remedy Sought
Wife sought to restrain husband from entering the matrimonial home and to have exclusive possession.
Filing Reason
Wife was aggrieved by the Family Court order that did not restrain the husband from entering the matrimonial home and allowed him to reside therein.
Previous Decisions
Family Court, 2nd Family Court, Mumbai, order dated 15th June 2010 allowed both parties to reside in the matrimonial home.
Issues
Whether the Family Court erred in not restraining the husband from entering the matrimonial home and allowing him to reside therein.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner-wife argued that she should have exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.
Respondent-husband argued that he has a right to reside in the shared household.
Ratio Decidendi
The husband has a right to reside in the shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the wife cannot claim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, especially when the home is large and comprises multiple flats.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner-wife has challenged a part of the order of the learned Judge, 2nd Family Court, Mumbai, dated 15th June 2010, in not restraining the Respondent-husband from entering upon the matrimonial home and in allowing him to reside therein wherein she has been allowed to reside.
The parties admittedly have a large matrimonial home as also other residential flats and an earlier matrimonial home.
Procedural History
The wife filed an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Family Court. The Family Court passed an order on 15th June 2010 allowing both parties to reside in the matrimonial home. The wife challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Section 19
