The Supreme Court has upheld an interim order by a family court in Maharashtra, which directed a husband to remove himself from his own home and not to visit there until the divorce petition under challenge is finally decided. The Bombay High Court had dismissed the challenge against the family court order. It was contended before the high court that final relief sought in the main petition could not have been granted at interim stage; he being a co-owner of the premises, he cannot be evicted from that premises which amounted to his virtual dispossession of the premises of which he was a co-owner.

The Divorce Petition filed on the ground of cruelty and the wife had alleged in the application seeking interim relief that she had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty due to which living under one roof with the husband has become impossible. Even the daughters of the couple filed their respective affidavits supported the stand taken by their mother.

Supreme Court, on an appeal by the husband, observed that Section 19(1)(b) of the Protection of Women Domestic Violence Act provides that the court may direct the husband to remove himself from the shared household. “The Judge had exercised his discretion under Section 19(1)(b) of the Domestic Violence Act, which provides that the Magistrate on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place can remove the spouse from the shared household which in our opinion he has rightly done. The High Court while declining to interfere with the order has also considered the factual and legal position.” the bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi observed. Having gone through the orders of the High Court and the Family Court and considering the fact that the daughters are grown up, declined the appeal filed by Husband. The court also observed that the order passed under Section 19 of the Act seeks to maintain continued and undisturbed residence of the aggrieved party within the shared household and in pursuance of same, it directed the respondent to execute a bond with or without surety or secure an alternate accommodation for the aggrieved party and pay the rent for the same and restrains the respondent from renouncing property rights or valuable security of the aggrieved party.

Criminal | Civil | Matrimonial | Divorce | Child Custody | Consumer Forum | MACT Claims |