The Bench of Justice Sandipkumar More quashed the lower court's order granting the right to residence to a woman including access to amenities in the house.
The court also noted that Section 17 of the DV Act provides a right to residence but it is only available if the woman continues to reside in a shared household before the divorce.
The bench made these observations while hearing a revision plea filed by the in-laws of the woman challenging the Magistrate's order allowing a divorced wife to reside in a shared household (the matrimonial house).
The in-laws also claimed that the house was in the name of her father in law (the husband's father).
It was also pointed out by the in-laws that the family court had dissolved their son's marriage in July 2018 and also submitted that the wife's appeal against the order is pending before the High Court.
The court noted that the wife left the matrimonial house much before the divorce and the wife has not put any material on record to show that she is forced to leave the matrimonial house by her husband or her in-laws.
In this context, the court ruled that the wife is not entitled to claim residence in her matrimonial house.
Case Title: Umakant Havgirao Bondre versus Sonali Suraj Bondre 4