2009 (12) TMI 1031 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ad interim maintenance and accommodation for wife and child.
2. Appeal against the order of the learned Magistrate.
3. Right of residence in matrimonial home.

Summary:

1. Ad Interim Maintenance and Accommodation for Wife and Child:

Both criminal revision petitions, one by the wife and another by the husband, challenge the orders dated 1st February 2008 by the learned JMIC, Gurgaon, which dismissed the wife's application for her own ad interim maintenance and accommodation in the matrimonial home but granted Rs. 10,000/- for the minor child. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the wife's appeal on the ground of limitation and upheld the maintenance for the child.

2. Appeal Against the Order of the Learned Magistrate:

The wife filed an appeal u/s 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the JMIC's order, claiming she was unemployed and entitled to maintenance. The husband's appeal sought a reduction in the Rs. 10,000/- maintenance for the child, citing limited resources. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed both appeals, leading to the revision petitions in the High Court.

3. Right of Residence in Matrimonial Home:

The husband contended that the wife had no right to stay in a property jointly owned by him and his mother, offering alternative accommodation or property division. The wife argued that the property was benami in the mother's name and cited an undertaking by the husband to not dislodge her forcibly. The Court found the property to be 'shared accommodation' and upheld the wife's right to reside there.

Judgment:

The Court set aside the learned Additional Sessions Judge's dismissal of the wife's appeal on the ground of limitation, noting a liberal approach should be adopted for condonation of delay. However, it did not remand the matter for reconsideration, directing the learned Magistrate to expedite the main matter.

The husband's revision petition was dismissed, with the Court finding no merit in his challenge to the interim maintenance and right of residence orders. The Court emphasized that these arrangements are interim and should not be varied at this stage.

The Court directed the learned Trial Judge to expedite the matter, clarifying that the opinions expressed should not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case.