Summary
An interim order requiring the husband to leave the shared matrimonial home was upheld despite his co-ownership. Prima facie domestic-violence material supported the Family Court’s statutory discretion. The Supreme Court declined interlocutory interference while expressly reserving the divorce dispute’s merits and directing expeditious disposal.
Issues
- Whether co-ownership prevented an interim direction to leave the shared household.
Provisions considered
- Section 19(1)(b), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005The residence-order power permitted removal of the husband from the shared household on the prima facie material accepted here. (¶ 11–12)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThe Court declined interference with the supported interlocutory exercise of discretion. (¶ 12–13)
Held
- The property was an undisputed shared household. The wife’s allegations and daughters’ affidavits supplied prima facie material; the Family Court’s discretion was not perverse merely because the husband co-owned the premises. (¶ 9–12)
- No final view on the matrimonial allegations was expressed. The trial was to proceed independently of observations in the interim orders and this judgment. (¶¶ 10, 13)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; interim residence order maintained and Family Court directed to expedite the divorce petition uninfluenced by interim observations.