Justice M L Mehta gave the ruling while disposing of a city's resident plea for quashing of his wife's complaint for his prosecution under Domestic Violence Act.
As per the DV Act provision, the complaint had also sought the man's eviction from his house, where his wife too had been living since her marriage.
Rejecting the woman's contention for direction to her husband to stay in his farm house at Sohna in Haryana, Justice Mehta, however said the woman will continue to live with her husband till an alternative accommodation is arranged for her, the offer for which was given by the man.
"The question that may arise is as to whether she, while having a right of residence in the shared household where she has been living for about nine years, and that when both of them cannot live together, and the flat cannot be partitioned, whether the petitioner (man) should be directed to remove himself or the petitioner can be directed to make arrangement of alternative accommodation (for his wife).
"The objective of providing right of residence to the wife (under the DV Act) was that she should not be left homeless by an action of the husband," said the court.
"In a situation like this, I cannot persuade myself to agree with the wife that the petitioner, who is the owner of the house and in view of the settlement that was arrived at between them by virtue of which she got few properties, should be directed to leave the premises and made to stay in a farm house at far away place at this stage," the court said. (More)
