Court asks woman to leave marital home
28 Jun 2012 1:44 PM GMT
The Delhi high court has not agreed with the contention of a wife that her husband should go out of the matrimonial house acquired by his earnings.
The court was hearing a petition of the husband seeking quashing of the criminal complaint filed by his wife under the Domestic Violence Act in a magistrate court.
The couple was married in 1990 and a daughter was born in 1991. The complaint against the husband was filed in the magistrate court in 2007. The main complaint levelled against the husband was that he was an alcoholic and drug abuser, which he has not been able to give up despite repeated promises and some treatments. She had said that she did not want to live with him anymore and intended to live a peaceful life even if it requires living separately.
The husband, in the response to her allegations in the magistrate court, said that his wife was not at all caring, picked up fights, used abusive language, was not doing any household activities and was highly materialistic.
He approached the high court and in his petition said that he has given his wife fair amount of money over the years of their marriage and she has saved the same in the shape of deposits amounting Rs 80 lakh in her accounts.
He said that she has been abusing the benevolent provisions of the Act. He said that since they cannot live together and the house where they are living was owned by him, but his wife was insisting that he should leave. He said that he was willing to offer her a reasonable two-bedroom accommodation in the area of similar standard, and that she has been rejecting this offer only to extort large sums of money from him.
'However, this being the admitted factual situation that both of them cannot live together any longer, some solution was required to be found for resolving the controversies,' observed Justice ML Mehta.
'They both are adamant to stay in this premises. The objective of providing right of residence to the wife was that she should not be left homeless by an action of the husband. In a situation like this, I cannot persuade myself to agree with the wife that the petitioner, who is the owner of the house and in view of the settlement that was arrived at between them by virtue of which she got few properties, should be directed to leave the premises and made to stay in a farm house at far away place,' said Justice Mehta.
While sending back the case to the magistrate, Justice Mehta ordered, 'In the given situation, the petitioner, who undisputedly has acquired this house in his name from his earnings cannot be made to leave this house and go and suffer alone in a far away place at this age. The offer given by the petitioner seems to be quite just and reasonable and till such time alternative arrangement of a suitable two-bedroom accommodation is made by the petitioner for the residence of his wife, she would continue to stay there and in case, they are unable to continue to live together any longer, the petitioner would give her market rent of the two-bed room accommodation in the similar locality, which the Magistrate will determine after hearing both the parties. Suitable order will be passed by the Magistrate in this regard.'
The court was hearing a petition of the husband seeking quashing of the criminal complaint filed by his wife under the Domestic Violence Act in a magistrate court.
The couple was married in 1990 and a daughter was born in 1991. The complaint against the husband was filed in the magistrate court in 2007. The main complaint levelled against the husband was that he was an alcoholic and drug abuser, which he has not been able to give up despite repeated promises and some treatments. She had said that she did not want to live with him anymore and intended to live a peaceful life even if it requires living separately.
The husband, in the response to her allegations in the magistrate court, said that his wife was not at all caring, picked up fights, used abusive language, was not doing any household activities and was highly materialistic.
He approached the high court and in his petition said that he has given his wife fair amount of money over the years of their marriage and she has saved the same in the shape of deposits amounting Rs 80 lakh in her accounts.
He said that she has been abusing the benevolent provisions of the Act. He said that since they cannot live together and the house where they are living was owned by him, but his wife was insisting that he should leave. He said that he was willing to offer her a reasonable two-bedroom accommodation in the area of similar standard, and that she has been rejecting this offer only to extort large sums of money from him.
'However, this being the admitted factual situation that both of them cannot live together any longer, some solution was required to be found for resolving the controversies,' observed Justice ML Mehta.
'They both are adamant to stay in this premises. The objective of providing right of residence to the wife was that she should not be left homeless by an action of the husband. In a situation like this, I cannot persuade myself to agree with the wife that the petitioner, who is the owner of the house and in view of the settlement that was arrived at between them by virtue of which she got few properties, should be directed to leave the premises and made to stay in a farm house at far away place,' said Justice Mehta.
While sending back the case to the magistrate, Justice Mehta ordered, 'In the given situation, the petitioner, who undisputedly has acquired this house in his name from his earnings cannot be made to leave this house and go and suffer alone in a far away place at this age. The offer given by the petitioner seems to be quite just and reasonable and till such time alternative arrangement of a suitable two-bedroom accommodation is made by the petitioner for the residence of his wife, she would continue to stay there and in case, they are unable to continue to live together any longer, the petitioner would give her market rent of the two-bed room accommodation in the similar locality, which the Magistrate will determine after hearing both the parties. Suitable order will be passed by the Magistrate in this regard.'
Next Story
