AO. 687-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 687 OF 2011 Lalchand Kalro & Ors. ... Appellants Vs. Neeraj Lalchand Kalro & Ors. ... Respondents *** Mr. Vivek Kantawala a/w Ms. Bhairav Narvadekar i/b M/s. Viveka Kantawala & Co., for the Petitioners. Dr. Santosh Raje, for Respondent No.2.. *** CORAM : Smt. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : AUGUST 20, 2011 PC. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants who are the original plaintiffs in the civil suit, filed for restraining the entry of respondent No.2 who is their daughter-in-law. She married respondent No.1/husband on 20th April, 2008. She, admittedly, came to live in the suit premises as a new bride. The suit premises became her matrimonial home. There is no other matrimonial home of the bride shown. 2. The parties to the marriage had several disputes. A complaint under Section 498-A of the I. P. Code came to be filed on 11-6-2010 and an application for certain directions under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( for short D. V. Act) came to be filed on 3rd July, 2010. Relief under the D. V. Act AO. 687-11 - 2 - came to be granted by the learned Magistrate’s Court and came to be confirmed by this Court. Thereafter the appellants filed the suit to claim the injunction which has not been granted. The husband has not defended the suit though he is defendant No. 1 and the wife/defendant No.2 rightly claims that the litigation is collusive. 3. The time of the suit is telling. The suit filed after the orders were passed under the Domestic Violence Act to restrain the entry of the wife, is to obtain the order from the back door. 4. The suit property was purchased in the name of plaintiff No.2 with the brother of her husband. Thereafter the share of the brother has been purchased by plaintiff No.1. The source of income of the plaintiff No. 2, the mother-in-law as on the date of purchase of the property is not shown even prima- facie. The suit property is a two BHK flat. One of the bed- rooms was used by the son and daughter-in-law. Equity, therefore, also is seen in favour of the daughter in law, wrongfully sought to be ousted. 5. The plaintiffs and their son carry on business jointly. A joint account of plaintiff No. 2 who is mother with her son is shown. All these aspects prima-facie point to the fact that the property is a HUF property. Upon the specific admission in paragraph 3 in the plaint that “the daughter-in-law was brought into the house by defendant No.1 after his marriage as a family member of defendant No.1” shows her matrimonial home which deserves to be protected for her, pending the suit. The AO. 687-11 - 3 - applicability of the case of – S. R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra [AIR 2007 SC 1118] would have to be considered upon evidence. The analogy in the case of – Anu Seth & Ors. Vs. Rohit Narain Seth & Ors. [II (2000) DMC 505], showing the duty of the husband to provide a matrimonial home to the wife, which right cannot be rendered infructuous by his voluntary acts, applies to the present case. In that case, the husband shifted to the house of his married sister around the time of filing of the suit. The act, lacking in bona fides, was considered by the court in granting relief to the wife following the principles of common law, justice, equity and good conscience, even before the enactment of the Domestic Violence Act. 6. The wife requires protection, as granted until she could be provided an alternative residence under Section 19(1) (f) of the D. V. Act. A civil action to pre-empt the statutory relief lacks bona fides. 7. The impugned order, therefore, does not require any interference. The appeal from order is dismissed. [ Smt. R. S. DALVI, J. ]