The Single Judge upheld the eviction of a wife from her husband's house on grounds of adultery and prior desertion but modified the rent payable by the husband to Rs.1,500/month upon vacatur.
Set aside the order of lower appellate court, dismissed appeal, and modified rent payable by respondent to appellant at Rs.1,500 per month upon vacatur.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.2009 of 2008 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CM No.5982-C of 2008 & RSA No.2009 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on :20.01.2010
Satnam Kaur
... Appellant
versus
Onkar Singh
... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. T.P.S.Tung, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL)
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court partly modifying that of the trial court and thereby decreeing the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the respondent directing the appellant to vacate his house with the condition that the respondent would pay Rs.1,000/- per month towards rent to the appellant for having dispossessed her from the house in question.
Ld. Trial court had dismissed the suit holding that being the legal wedded wife of the respondent, appellant had absolute right to stay in the house and invoked the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The ld. Lower Appellate Court however held that though the appellant being
RSA No.2009 of 2008 (O&M)
-2-
the wife, has the right to stay in some accommodation provided by the respondent yet in view of the fact that the allegation of adultery against the appellant had been corroborated by the daughter of the parties, held that it was the appellant who had deserted the respondent. He has also relied upon the decision of this court in CRR No.1417 of 2006 which was decided on 18.07.2007 between the same parties, where also this Court has held that it was the appellant who has deserted the respondent. Following questions of law have been proposed:
i) Whether the appellant/defendant being the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff/respondent has the right to live in the house in dispute?
ii) Whether the wife appellant/defendant can be ordered to be evicted from the matrimonial house on the basis of a suit for mandatory injunction filed by the husband?
iii) Whether the appellant/defendant is the co-owner of the house in dispute?
RSA No.2009 of 2008 (O&M)
-3-
set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court deserves to be upheld?
Questions No.(i), (ii) (iv) & (vi) are overlapping questions. With regard to these questions ld. Lower Appellate Court has held that even though the appellant does have the right to be accommodated at the cost of the respondent during the subsistence of the marriage yet there is no absolute right of the appellant to stay in a particular house owned by the respondent. In the circumstances where this court has earlier held that the appellant was guilty of deserting the respondent, no fault can be found with this finding. No argument has been raised regarding question No. (iii). With regard to question No.(v), however, I find that the amount of Rs.1000/- adjudged by the lower appellate court as rent per month would be too inadequate.
In these circumstances, this appeal and application for stay are dismissed with the modification that the amount of rent payable by the respondent to the appellant is fixed at Rs.1,500/per month. This amount would start being payable to the appellant as and when she vacates the house in dispute.
January 20, 2010 ( AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant has the right to stay in a particular house owned by the respondent given findings of adultery and desertion.
Whether the respondent can be ordered to pay rent as the appellant vacates the matrimonial home.
Whether the quantum of monthly rent fixed by the lower appellate court is appropriate.
Satnam Kaur
Onkar Singh
AJAY TEWARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
