[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday observed that a woman has a right to residence at the houses of her mother as well as her mother-in-law and sending her away “just because you cannot stand her face will not be allowed by this court”.
“This attitude of throwing out women from their matrimonial homes because of certain matrimonial squabbles is cracking up families,” said a vacation bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and B V Nagarathna.
However, the bench was not in favour of giving a carte blanche right of residence to women in matrimonial homes. “If she is accused of misbehaving, then conditions can be put by the court not to trouble the elders and family members in matrimonial homes,” said Justice Nagarathna.
The case is related to an appeal filed by a woman against a Bombay high court order directing her and her husband to vacate the house of her father-in-law, who had moved the tribunal for exclusive residence at his flat under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.
The tribunal ordered the woman to vacate her father-in-law’s flat and directed her and her husband to pay the elderly couple Rs 25,000 monthly maintenance. She had filed a writ petition challenging the tribunal’s order citing her right of residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The high court had ordered the elderly couple’s son to provide alternative accommodation to his wife and two children but waived off maintenance liability. She then challenged the high court order before the apex court.
The bench directed listing of her petition on Thursday and directed the registry to provide video conference links to her parents-in-law. Justice Nagarathna was vocal about the woman’s right of residence in a shared household during the hearing and cited her own judgment of May 12 pegging a milestone in this regard.
“This attitude of throwing out women from their matrimonial homes because of certain matrimonial squabbles is cracking up families,” said a vacation bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and B V Nagarathna.
However, the bench was not in favour of giving a carte blanche right of residence to women in matrimonial homes. “If she is accused of misbehaving, then conditions can be put by the court not to trouble the elders and family members in matrimonial homes,” said Justice Nagarathna.
The case is related to an appeal filed by a woman against a Bombay high court order directing her and her husband to vacate the house of her father-in-law, who had moved the tribunal for exclusive residence at his flat under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.
The tribunal ordered the woman to vacate her father-in-law’s flat and directed her and her husband to pay the elderly couple Rs 25,000 monthly maintenance. She had filed a writ petition challenging the tribunal’s order citing her right of residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The high court had ordered the elderly couple’s son to provide alternative accommodation to his wife and two children but waived off maintenance liability. She then challenged the high court order before the apex court.
The bench directed listing of her petition on Thursday and directed the registry to provide video conference links to her parents-in-law. Justice Nagarathna was vocal about the woman’s right of residence in a shared household during the hearing and cited her own judgment of May 12 pegging a milestone in this regard.
[ad_2]
Source link
