I. Vincent Reetha vs S. Justine Prabu

M. Duraiswamy, J.—Heard Mrs. K. Santhakumari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. A. Arulmozhi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

The petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent filed a petition in I.A. No. 1371 of 2010 in O.P. No. 1440 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent from vacating the premises at Old Door No. 17, New No. 20A, Leith Manor, Leith Castle South Street, Santhome, Chennai and from evicting the petitioner from the shared household and directing the respondent subsequently to pay the rent and maintenance to the owner of the premises. The trial Court after taking into consideration the case of both the parties, ordered the petitioner/wife to look out an alternative accommodation for rent not exceeding Rs. 10,000/- as monthly rent for her to reside within three months from the date of the order, until then, she was permitted to reside in the same house as mentioned in the petition and further, ordered the respondent/husband to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 16,000/- for three months from the date of order. Thereafter, he was ordered to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/- for the alternative accommodation which will be secured by the petitioner/wife for her occupation till the disposal of the main O.P. No. 1284 of 2010.

According to the petitioner, she married the respondent as per Christian ceremonies and rites on 22.8.2005. They lived together initially at Bangalore and after coming from Bangalore to Chennai, they set up their residence in Santhome in the year 2006. The petitioner is an employee of the State Government. Due to misunderstanding between the petitioner and the respondent, the respondent wanted to be separated from his wife. Therefore, the respondent filed O.P. No. 1284 of 2010 for dissolution of the marriage. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 1440 of 2010 for restitution of conjugal rights.

That on 6.6.2010, the petitioner was informed by the house owner that her husband has asked him to take only three months rent and hand over the advance to him. The landlord, further, requested the petitioner to vacate the house with immediate effect since the agreement between him and the respondent had come to an end. The unilateral decision of vacating the house by the respondent caused mental agony to the petitioner, since he wanted to drive her away from the matrimonial home. The respondent has been trying to dispossess the petitioner from her shared household by directing the house owner to close the rental agreement from March 2010. Unless, the respondent secures the same level of alternative accommodation as enjoyed by the petitioner in the shared household to the petitioner and pay rent for the same, she cannot be forced to evict the premises.

According to the petitioner, the respondent deserted the petitioner without any valid reason and has directed the house owner to close the rental agreement. The petitioner has every right to stay in the petition mentioned premises. She is willing to join her husband Since the respondent had stopped paying the rent and since she is earning 1/5th of the respondent''s income, she is unable to pay the rent after using her salary for food and clothing. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed the petition u/s 17 and 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

According to the respondent, in order to take up the business of his father, the respondent wanted to resign his job and asked the petitioner to get transfer nearer to Trichy. However, the petitioner refused to come over to Trichy and wanted to stay at Chennai. The petitioner with the help of her brother-in-law filed a complaint against the respondent before All Women Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai. The respondent filed O.P. No. 1284 of 2010 seeking divorce from the petitioner and the respondent filed O.P. 1440 of 2010 for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent''s monthly gross income is Rs. 82,000/- and his carry home salary is Rs. 72,000/-.

According to the respondent, he is not dispossessing the petitioner from the shared household by directing the house owner to close the rental agreement. According to the respondent, no domestic violence had taken place between the petitioner and the respondent. Further, according to the respondent, the present petition was filed with an intention to harass the respondent. The petitioner''s salary certificate was marked as Ex.P1 and the rental agreement between the respondent and the landlord at Bangalore was marked as Ex.R.1. It is not in dispute that after the marriage, the petitioner and respondent were living together at Chennai till 2010. Due to some misunderstanding between the petitioner and the respondent, the respondent filed O.P. for divorce and the petitioner filed O.P. No. 1440 of 2010 for restitution of conjugal rights.

As per the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the petitioner is entitled to stay along with the husband in the same house. Further, the petitioner has filed the O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, in the said O.P. the petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 1371 of 2010 from restraining the respondent from vacating the premises and from evicting her from the shared household and to direct the respondent to pay the rent to the landlord. From Ex.P.1 Salary certificate, it could be seen that the petitioner is earning Rs. 16,000/-per month. The respondent is earning a sum of Rs. 72,000/- per month. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, the respondent left the job at Chennai and got an employment at Bangalore. From Ex.R.1, it could be seen that at Bangalore, the respondent is paying a monthly rent of Rs. 14,000/-.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying upon Section 17 and 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act submitted that the petitioner has a right to seek an alternative accommodation which would be on par with the shared household that she once enjoyed at some point of time. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of her contention relied upon the following judgments:

(i) 2007 6 MLJ 205 : 2007 4 L.W. 460 (Vandana v. T. Srikanth and others) wherein this Court held that the applicant has statutory right to live in shared household of the respondent, till marriage is dissolved in manner known to law.

(ii) M. Muruganandam and Sushmitha Priya @ Priya Vs. M. Megala, wherein this Court held that an aggrieved women can seek orders to enable her to reside in shared household or a residence order to enable her to reside in the share household, then the property, which is the subject matter, should be a shared household and the aggrieved woman can seek the relief of alternative accommodation in terms of Section 19(1)(f) and in such case, the concept of shared household would not be attracted and as per Section 19(1)(f), the shared household is just for purpose of enabling the aggrieved woman to seek alternative accommodation on par with the shared household that she enjoyed at some point of time. Therefore, from the above judgment, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to seek alternative accommodation which would be on par with the shared household that she enjoyed at some point of time.

The Trial Court ordered the petitioner to look out an alternative accommodation for a rent not exceeding Rs. 10,000/- per month for her to reside within three months from the date of the order, until then, she was permitted to reside in the same house as mentioned in the petition and directed the respondent/husband to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 16,000/-for three months and thereafter, he has to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/- for the alternative accommodation till the disposal of the main O.P. No. 1284 of 2010. Though, the petitioner is staying alone at Chennai, u/s 19(1)(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, she is entitled seek alternative accommodation which would be on par with shared household that she enjoyed at some point of time. The right to reside in the shared household is protected u/s 17 of the Act and the right to seek residence orders u/s 13 of the Act. Therefore, from Section 19(1)(f) it is clear that the petitioner can seek alternative accommodation which would be on par with the shared household that she enjoyed. Therefore, the order of the trial Court directing the respondent to pay monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/-when the petitioner was residing in the premises paying Rs. 16,000/- is erroneous and against the provisions of Section 19(1)(f) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, made in I.A. No. 1371 of 2010 in O.P. No. 1440 of 2010 is liable to be set aside. The petitioner is entitled to seek alternative accommodation for a monthly rent of Rs. 16,000/- per month towards the rent for the alternative accommodation to the petitioner/wife till the disposal of the O.P. No. 1284 of 2010. In these circumstances, the fair and decreetal order in I.A. No. 1371 of 2010 in O.P. No. 1440 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai are set aside. The petitioner/wife is hereby ordered to look out an alternative accommodation for a rent of not exceeding Rs. 16,000/- as monthly rent for her to reside and the respondent /husband is ordered to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 16,000/- for the alternative accommodation which will be secured by the petitioner/wife for her occupation till the disposal of the O.P. No. 1284 of 2010. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.