14.In the instant case, there is a vague and superficial averment that she underwent harassment and suffering and she had to go out of her home and was living separately. However, there is no evidence on record to prove the allegations. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the appellant has not suffered any domestic violence, much less at the hands of the respondent. On the other hand, the respondent has been suffering the same at the hands of the appellant. It is found that the First Appellate Court has dealt with the issue and arrived at the conclusion that the appellant was provided with maintenance by her husband for herself and her child by virtue of the decree passed in MOP No.21 of 2004 by the Family Court, Pondicherry and she is taking money towards the educational expenses of the child. The First Appellate Court has also held that if the appellant seeks further relief, she can seek it from her husband. Therefore, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant supports the cause of the respondent and does not aid the appellant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. The appellant has not pleaded and proved the act of domestic violence and her entitlement to the shared household as envisaged under Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In fact, the respondent / plaintiff had suffered the domestic violence at the hands of the appellant and was chased out from the house and living separately in a rental accommodation from the year 2005. The admitted position entitled her to get recovery of possession of the house which absolutely belongs to her through her husband. Further, the whereabouts of the husband of the appellant is not known. However, the appellant is receiving maintenance for herself and her son and also educational and other expenses from her husband.
