Top Stories

SC Upholds Family Court Order Asking Husband To Vacate His Own Home During Pendency Of Divorce Case [Read Judgment]

Ashok KM
12 May 2017 9:22 AM GMT
SC Upholds Family Court Order Asking Husband To Vacate His Own Home During Pendency Of Divorce Case [Read Judgment]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court, in Samir Vidyasagar Bhardwaj vs Nandita Samir Bhardwaj, 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 apex 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 bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R Banumathi observed.

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.

Read the Judgment here.

Next Story