While allowing a wife's plea for permanent injunction, the Madras High Court has opined that if removal of the husband from home alone is the only way to ensure domestic peace, the Family Courts should not hesitate to pass such orders.
The bench of Justice RN Manjula observed,
"The protection orders are normally given to ensure the peaceful movement of a woman within her domestic sphere. When a woman fears the presence of her husband and screams, the Courts cannot be indifferent by just directing the husband that he should not harass the wife, but by allowing him to reside in the same house."
The bench added that removal of husband from the matrimonial house may be ordered irrespective of the fact whether the respondent has or has not another accommodation of his own.
"If the husband has got an alternate accommodation, it is fine that he can be asked to accommodate himself in that alternate premises. If he does not have any other accommodation, it is upto him to secure an alternate accommodation."
In the present case, the wife, an advocate by profession, had challenged the order of the Family Court which had merely directed the husband not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the home in any manner by the petitioner and her children.
The petitioner wife had contended that the respondent harassed her and tortured her by manhandling her and abusing her in filthy language in front of their children. She submitted that such abuse would affect the peace of mind of the children, she moved a petition for mandatory injunction when the abuse went beyond limits. However, since the Family judge had not removed the husband from the matrimonial home, he aggravated his abusive attitude.
The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner, even after obtaining a favorable order from the Family Court had filed the petition. He submitted that he was a supportive father and still the petitioner had dragged him to the court.
The court noticed the attitude of the respondent and observed that the intolerance of the respondent towards the petitioner's profession was creating troubles between the parties. The respondent had a hostile attitude towards the petitioner and had failed to respect the professional commitments of the petitioner. The court noted the counter of the respondent wherein he had contended that the petitioner did not stay at home and often went outside. The court observed that such a situation would deeply affect the personal and professional life of the women.
According to the understanding of the respondent, an ideal mother is a woman who always stays at home and does only the household chores. If a woman chooses to be independent and do something more than being a housewife and if it is not taken well by her husband, that makes her life horrible by having its repercussion over her personal, familial and professional spheres.
Observing the doubtful mind of the respondent, the court also cited that he had attributed bias against the Family Judge be alleging that he was amenable to the influence of the petitioner. This had then invited Court's suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against the respondent.
The court noted that in such adverse situations, the court should not compel the petitioner and her children to live under the same roof with the respondent under constant fear and insecurity. The court noted that when the conduct of the parties was not affecting the family peace, the court could have allowed them to live under the same roof. But that was not the present case.
It is not unusual for couple live under a same proof despite their marriage lost its charm. They may even turn east and west but still try to manage to live in the same house. So long as their conduct does not hurt the family peace, but only their personal relationship, there is no harm in allowing the parties to live in a same house until a logical end is given to their marriage.
The court therefore opined that If the removal of the husband from home alone is the only way to ensure domestic peace, the courts need to pass such orders irrespective of the fact whether the respondent has or has not an other accommodation of his own.
The court also noted that the Family Court had failed to consider the fact that the respondent had an alternate accommodation and passed the impugned order. The court noted that such an order was an impractical one.
Allowing the respondent to be at the same home, but directing him that he should not disturb the other inmates of the home is something impractical. A relief for a person who fears about an impending atom bomb, would be just to remove the bomb from his/her vicinity.
Thus, the court directed the respondent to leave the house where the petitioner and the children were residing and find an alternative accommodation within a period of two weeks failing which, the respondent shall be removed from the matrimonial home with the help of police protection. The petitioner was also given liberty to approach the family court for getting appropriate orders like police protection, in case, the respondent fails to leave the matrimonial home by himself.
Case Title: V Anusha v. B Krishnan
Case No: C.R.P (PD).No.1824 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. S.P.Arthi
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.D.Suresh Kumar