Ex-Wife’s Claim For Residence In Shared Household Cannot Supersede Decree For Eviction Passed By Competent Civil Court: Kerala High Court

Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas held thus:

“By the impugned judgment, the Family Court ordered eviction of the appellant from the petition schedule building in accordance with the procedure established by law, and her claim for residence in that building, as a shared household cannot supersede the decree for eviction granted by a competent civil court. In any view of the matter, the appellant has no right to reside in the petition schedule building and so, she is bound to vacate that building forthwith.”

The appellant ex-wife has challenged the order of the Family Court giving possession of the residence building to the respondent husband and his family. The residence building belonged to the late mother of the husband and after her death, the respondent came into the possession of the building. The appellant and respondent were residing in that house after their marriage in 1994. They got divorced in 2015, after which the respondents filed original petition for recovery of possession of the building from the ex-wife. The Family Court ordered the possession to be given to the respondents, which was challenged by the appellant in the High Court.

The Court found that the appellant was claiming rights over property by stating that it was her shared household and that she has been residing there ever since her marriage in 1994. The Court held that the Family Court had found that the appellant had no right, title or interest over that property as the marriage between the appellant and respondent has been dissolved as early as in 2015.

“She has no case that, she is having any title or ownership over that property. So, we are in full agreement with the finding of the Family Court that, she is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule building.”

The Court stated that the appellant had filed various cases alleging domestic violence against the respondent which were dismissed. The Court also found that the appellant had filed matrimonial case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act seeking orders of residence and compensation.

The Court found that the allegations of domestic violence were not proved against the respondent. It found that the appellant was trying to continue in possession of the building, and that she was not accepting any alternate offers of accommodation provided by the respondent. The matrimonial cases against the respondent were dismissed and that appellant was not given possession. The Court held that the Family Court has evicted the appellant after examining the provisions under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Based on the above findings, the Court upheld the order passed by Family Court in evicting the appellant and restoring the possession to the respondent.

“In the result, the appeal fails and hence dismissed. The appellant is directed to vacate the petition schedule building forthwith and in default, the 2nd respondent, who is the owner of that building, can approach the Family Court, and in that event, the Family Court has to see that the 2nd respondent is put in possession of the petition schedule building, without further delay.”, the Court stated.

Case name: V V Jaya v. M P Rajeswaran Nair

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 452

Case number: MAT.APPEAL NO. 418 Of 2023

Counsel for the appellant: Advocates Goutham Krishna U.B., C. Unnikrishnan, Vivek Nair P., Nidhi Balachandran, Ananda Padmanabhan, Uthara A.S and Vijaykrishnan S. Menon

Counsel for the respondents: Advocates M. Ajith, N.P. Pradeep and R. Mohana Babu