The Family Court’s impugned order was modified and the respondent-husband was instructed to find alternate housing for the petitioner and the children within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order: Madras High Court
The Family Court’s impugned order was modified and the respondent-husband was instructed to find alternate housing for the petitioner and the children within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order is upheld by the Madras High Court through Justice R N Manjula in the case of V Anusha v. B Krishnan (CRP (PD) No. 1824 of 2022)
FACTS OF THE CASE
The wife of the petitioner filed an original petition for divorce from the respondent-husband. While the divorce process was ongoing, the wife filed an interim application seeking a mandatory injunction directing the respondent to leave the marital home in the children’s best interests and welfare until the Original Petition was resolved.
This which was partially allowed by the Family Court directing the respondent to not interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the marital home in any way. This was contested by the revision petitioner, who opted for the current civil revision case.
The Court observed that the respondent adopted a whining attitude and found fault with the petitioner for being focused on her work, rather than lending a helping hand by accommodating the petitioner’s demanding profession.
The Court cited the case of Samir Vidyasagar Bhardwaj v. Nandita Samir Bhardwaj, (2017) in order to emphasise that regardless of whether the respondent has another place of residence or not, such orders must be issued if the husband’s departure from the home is the only option to guarantee domestic tranquilly. If the husband has other accommodations, it is acceptable to ask him to make himself at home in those additional spaces. It is his responsibility to find other accommodations if he does not have any other options.
As a result, the Court noted that when a couple shares a home, how each behaves toward the other is always important in determining the respect and attention the family would receive from others. If the husband’s disruptive behaviour causes domestic harmony to be disturbed, there need not be any hesitation in enforcing the protection order practically by kicking him out of the house.
The Court modified the Family Court’s impugned order and instructed the respondent-husband to find alternate housing for the petitioner and the children within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order. If he fails to do so, the respondent will be removed from the marital home with the assistance of police protection.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of Best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY NISHTHA GARHWAL
Click here to view the judgment