The Kerala High Court recently held that divorced wife cannot continue to stay at her matrimonial home claiming it to be shared household, superseding the order of eviction passed by a competent Civil Court.

Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas was dealing in a case where 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 (husband) 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.

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.

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.

“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 court said.

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