Joginder Singh vs Roma Arjani
1997 Latest Caselaw 491 Del

JUDGMENT

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

(1) Learned Counsel for the appellant seeks an adjournment. Learned Counsel for the Caveator has opposed the request. This appeal is pending for admission since 31.1.1997. Several adjournments have been granted to the appellant is hereby rejected.

(2) HEARD.

(3) The respondent No. 1-Smt. Roma Arjani filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law from dispossessing her from first floor of the premises N/5, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. Alongwith plaint, she also filed an application u/Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 for an interim injunction.

(4) By the impugned order dated 7.12.1996, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge allowed the said application restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the respondent No. 1 over the premises in question. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(5) Admittedly, the respondent No. 1 is the wife of the respondent No. 2. Appellant is the father of the respondent Nos. 2,4 & 5 and the respondent No. 3 is the wife of the appellant. It is also undisputed that the respondent No. 1 resides in the suit premises with her husband (respondent No. 2). As a wife of the respondent No. 2, the respondent No.1 is entitled to the company of her husband and as such she is entitled to reside with her husband under the same roof. A wife cannot be evicted from her matrimonial home without due process of law. That apart, husband is under moral and legal obligation to maintain his wife. The learned Trial Court has rightly held that the maintenance also includes the right to residence. It is also undisputed that the respondent No. 1 is in possession of the premises in question. The learned Trial Court in exercise of its discretion has granted interim injunction in favour of the respondent No. 1. There is nothing to show on record that the Trial Court has exercised this discretion erroneously or capriciously. There is no justifiable ground to interfere with the discretion exercised 'by the Trial Court in granting the interim injunction in favour of the respondent No. 1.

(6) Dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.