Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by Umakant Bondre/ applicant 1 (former father-in-law of respondent 1) challenging the order dated 12-02-2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir whereby respondent 1-divorced wife was permitted to occupy the shared household standing in the name of present applicant 1, Sandipkumar C More, J. held that respondent 1 being a divorced wife, is not entitled to claim residence order or implementation of earlier residence order in the light of changed circumstances i.e. after her subsequent divorce for occupying the shared household after leaving the same long back and prior to her divorce.
The applicants in the proceedings are the parents of respondent 2 Suraj Umakant Bondre (husband) and in-laws of respondent 1 . Initially, a case was filed by Respondent 1-wife under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, wherein the Magistrate directed respondent 2-husband to provide interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month and also monthly amount of Rs. 1500/- as a rent for wife to make arrangement for her residence independently, which was later modified to include giving her accommodation in the shared household. The modified order stands impugned by the present application.
The main ground for challenging the impugned order is that Respondent 1-wife cannot enforce these orders since the marriage between both of them has been dissolved long back and more particularly on 10-07-2018 when the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udgir passed an order of dissolution of marriage between Sakshi and her husband.
Placing reliance on Ramachandra Warrior v. Jayasree, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 1444, the Court held that Respondent 1 cannot take resort to the earlier residence order when her marriage with respondent 2 Suraj has been dissolved by a divorce decree passed by the Court having proper jurisdiction and especially when she had already left her shared household four years back. Under the circumstances, wife is not even entitled for the relief of restraining dispossession since she is not in possession of the shared household.
Thus, the Court held that the Magistrate has definitely erred in directing the applicants to provide one room to respondent 1-wife in the shared household along with the facility of WC, bathroom and electricity as respondent 1 being a divorced wife, is not entitled to claim residence order or implementation of earlier residence order in the light of changed circumstances i.e., after her subsequent divorce for occupying the shared household after leaving the same long back and prior to her divorce.
[Umakant Havgirao Bondre v. Sakshi, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 3168, decided on 30-09-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. P.V. Barde, Advocate, for the Applicants;
Mr. Ajinkya Reddy, Advocate, for the Respondent 1;
Mr. Ameya Sabnis, Advocate, for the Respondent 2.
*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.
