RSA No.2009 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.5982-C of 2008 & RSA No.2009 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on :20.01.2010 Satnam Kaur ... Appellant versus Onkar Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. T.P.S.Tung, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court partly modifying that of the trial court and thereby decreeing the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the respondent directing the appellant to vacate his house with the condition that the respondent would pay Rs.1,000/- per month towards rent to the appellant for having dispossessed her from the house in question. Ld. Trial court had dismissed the suit holding that being the legal wedded wife of the respondent, appellant had absolute right to stay in the house and invoked the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The ld. Lower Appellate Court however held that though the appellant being RSA No.2009 of 2008 (O&M) -2- the wife, has the right to stay in some accommodation provided by the respondent yet in view of the fact that the allegation of adultery against the appellant had been corroborated by the daughter of the parties, held that it was the appellant who had deserted the respondent. He has also relied upon the decision of this court in CRR No.1417 of 2006 which was decided on 18.07.2007 between the same parties, where also this Court has held that it was the appellant who has deserted the respondent. Following questions of law have been proposed: i) Whether the appellant/defendant being the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff/respondent has the right to live in the house in dispute? ii) Whether the wife appellant/defendant can be ordered to be evicted from the matrimonial house on the basis of a suit for mandatory injunction filed by the husband? iii) Whether the appellant/defendant is the co-owner of the house in dispute? iv) Whether the appellant/defendant being the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff/respondent has the right to live in the house in dispute? v) Whether the appellant/defendant can be ordered to be evicted from the house in dispute by giving her only Rs.1000/- per month for getting rented accommodation, as has been held by the appellate court? vi) Whether the judgment and decree of the appellate court is against the law on the point and deserves to be RSA No.2009 of 2008 (O&M) -3- set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court deserves to be upheld? Questions No.(i), (ii) (iv) & (vi) are overlapping questions. With regard to these questions ld. Lower Appellate Court has held that even though the appellant does have the right to be accommodated at the cost of the respondent during the subsistence of the marriage yet there is no absolute right of the appellant to stay in a particular house owned by the respondent. In the circumstances where this court has earlier held that the appellant was guilty of deserting the respondent, no fault can be found with this finding. No argument has been raised regarding question No. (iii). With regard to question No.(v), however, I find that the amount of Rs.1000/- adjudged by the lower appellate court as rent per month would be too inadequate. In these circumstances, this appeal and application for stay are dismissed with the modification that the amount of rent payable by the respondent to the appellant is fixed at Rs.1,500/- per month. This amount would start being payable to the appellant as and when she vacates the house in dispute. January 20, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE