Right To Residence In Matrimonial Home Includes Right To Safe And Healthy Living: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

5 April 2023 5:00 AM GMT

  • Right To Residence In Matrimonial Home Includes Right To Safe And Healthy Living: Delhi High Court

    The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to residence in a matrimonial home under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, also includes the right to safe and healthy living. While issuing notice on a wife’s plea challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court in a civil case relating to matrimonial dispute, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela...

    The Delhi High Court has observed that the right to residence in a matrimonial home under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, also includes the right to safe and healthy living.

    While issuing notice on a wife’s plea challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court in a civil case relating to matrimonial dispute, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said:

    “…. it goes without saying that the right to residence in a matrimonial home, under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, also would subsume within itself, the definition of “right to safe and healthy living” too. Hence, requiring interference by this Court.”

    The wife had challenged the order passed on February 07 wherein her appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the First Appellate Court.

    The trial court, while disposing of the wife’s interim application, had observed that there was no prima facie case of harassment and torture made out in her favour and against her husband and in laws.

    Challenging the order before First Appellate Court, her counsel submitted that the trial court overlooked the fact that the husband and in laws had been feeding street dogs in the shared household which is in violation of her fundamental rights, including right to life and right to health.

    It was also submitted that the trial court failed to consider the fact that keeping the street dogs in the house would ultimately cause a number of diseases and nuisance to the wife.

    Perusing the relevant portion of the impugned order, Justice Gedela observed that the First Appellate Court ought to have, prima facie, considered balancing equities between the parties, especially, keeping in view the inter se relationship.

    “Issue notice... Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter,” the court said while listing the matter for further hearing on May 22.

    Title: NG v. SG & ANR

    Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 285

    Next Story