In the present case, Eveneet and Prashant were living together. No doubt, the suit
premises are not owned by either of them; the documents on record prima facie disclose that
exclusive title and right is of Kavita, the mother-in-law. Yet, having regard to the previous
discussion, Kavita is undoubtedly a “respondent” in whose household, the couple lived together.
The Court here cannot be oblivious of the circumstance that Prashant moved out when the
relationship became stormy; the possibility of the eviction suit having been filed as a pre-emptive
move, to bring it within the Batra formulation cannot be ruled out at this stage. In the context,
the Court holds that what cannot be done directly, cannot be achieved indirectly through
stratagem. If the Court can look beyond the facts, and in a given case, conclude that the overall
conspectus of circumstances, suggests manipulation by the husband or his relatives, to defeat a
right inhering in the wife, to any order under Section 19, such “lifting of the veil” should be
resorted to. Therefore, the plaintiff indeed has a right of residence under the Domestic Violence
Act.
In this context, it has been
observed by a division bench of this Court in Shumita Didi Sandhu v. Sanjay Singh Sandhu and
Ors., (F.A.O. (OS) 341/2007, Decided On: 26.10.2010) that
“the right of residence which a wife undoubtedly has does not mean the right to reside in
a particular property. It may, of course, mean the right to reside in a commensurate
property.”The above approach is consistent with the power under Section 19 (1) (f), which enables the
Court to direct “the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the
aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the
circumstances so require…”. The plaintiff is thus, entitled to residence in a property
commensurate with her lifestyle and her current residence, keeping in mind Kavita‟s health
condition.
read more here;bit.ly/137XiZv
No comments:
Post a Comment