SAMIR VIDYASAGAR BHARDWAJ versus NANDITA SAMIR BHARDWAJ
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 89, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 89 
SAMIR VIDYASAGAR BHARDWAJ 
v. 
NANDITA SAMIR BHARDWAJ 
(CivilAppeal No. 6450 of 2017) 
MAY09,2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATIII, JJ.] 
Protection of Wo111en from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 
s. 19(1)(b) - Application under - By wif? - Praying for 
issuance of mandatory injunction against the husband to move out 
of the matrimonial house and handing over vacant and peaceful 
possession of the house - Divorce petition by wife on the ground of 
cruelty pending - Family Court by interim order directed the 
husband to move out 'of the matrimonial house and not to visit the. 
same till the decision ofthe divorce petition - High Court affirmed 
the order of family court - On appeal, held: s. 19(l){b) provides 
that the Magistrate on being satisfied Iha( domestic violence has 
.taken place, can remove the spouse from shared household- The 
Family Court arrived at a findii1g that prima facie 111aferial was 
available to acc.ept the allegation of wife and· then. exercised his .. 
discretion u/s. 19(1)(/J) - Exercise of such discretion cannot be said 
to be perverse. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court - · 
HELD: 1. Section 19(l)(b) of the Protection of Women 
from Domestic Violence Act provides that the Court may direct 
the appellant-husband to remove himself from the shared 
I,ousehold. The order passed under Section 19 of the Act seeks 
to maintain continued and undisturbed residence of the aggrieved 
party within the shared household and in pursuance of
same, it 
directs the respondent to execute a bond with or without surety 
or secure an alternate accommodation for the aggrieved party 
~nd pay the rent for the same and restrains the respondent from 
or renouncing property rights or val.uable security of tbe 
aggrieved party. [Para 11] [92-G-II] 
2. The Family Court arrived at a finding that prii1w facie · · 
material was available on record to accept the allegation of the 
89 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
.. ,
90 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COT!fRT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
respondent-wife on domestic violence wherein the concerned 
Judge had exercised his discretion under Section 19(1)(b) of the 
Act which Jlrovides that the Magistrate on being satisfied that 
domestic violence has taken place can remove the spouse from 
the shared household which he bas rightly done. Exercise of 
discretion by Family Court cannot be said to be perverse 
warranting interference. The High Court while declining to 
interfere with the order has also considered the factual and legal 
position. [Para 12) [93-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6450 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.01.2017 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in W. P. (C) No. 169 of2017. 
. 
. 
M. L. Vanna, Sr.Adv, Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Adv. for the Appellant. 
Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv, Udit Gupta (For Ravi Kumar Tomar), Adv. 
D 
for the Respondent. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
. R. BANUMA'fHI, J, 1. Leave granted. 
2. An order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ 
Petition(C) No. 169 of 2017 dated 11.01.2017 wherein the High Court 
affirmed the interim order passed by the Family Court in and by which 
the appellant-husband has been directed to remove himself from his 
own home and not to visit there until the divorce petition is finally decided 
is under challenge. 
3. This case presents a very unpleasant tale of a couple having 
daughters who are in their early twenties
witnessing a bitter matrimonial 
battle between their parents. The appellant and the respondent herein 
tied nuptial knot on 05.05.1992. The couple resided in two flats being 
Flat No. 102 and Flat No. I 03 situated in the building known as "Hi 
Ville" 29'h Road, Bandra(West), Mumbai. The said two flats were sold 
by the couple and they purchased a flat bearing No. 20 I situated in 
"Aashna" Building, 8, St. Martin Road, Bandra (West) Mumbai by way 
of Agreement for Sale dated 22.11.20 I 0. The said flat was purchased in 
the joint names of the appellant and the respondent herein where they 
have been resid.ing with their two daughters till date.
SAMIR VIDYASAGAR BHARDWAJ v. NANDITA SAMIR 
91 
BHARDWAJ [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
4. After more than two decades of marital life, on 09.07.2015 · A 
respondent-wife filed a petition under Section27(1)(d) of the Special 
Marriage Act for divorce against the appellant being Petition No. A-
1873 of2015 in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The respondent 
has sought various other reliefs including a direction to be give11 to the 
appellant to move out of the matrimonial home and handover vacant and 
peaceful possession of the same to the respondent and to pay a 
maintenance ofRs. l ,00,000/- and other consequential reliefs apart from 
seeking dissolution of marriage. An application being I.A. No.162 of 
2015 was filed by the respondent-wife under Section 19(1 )(b) of the 
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the 
Domestic Violence Act') praying for issuance of mandatory injunction 
against the appellant-husband to inove out of the matrimonial house and 
handing over the vacimt and peaceful possession of the house. In addition 
to the aqove, she had also sought for alimony/maintenance and the 
expenses of marriage of her daughters. 
5. When the application was taken up by the Family Com1, the 
respondent-wife did not press for other reliefs and she pressed only for 
the relief of mandatory injunction to direct the appellant-husband to move 
out of the matrimonial house. The application was resisted by the appellant 
herein denying all the allegations
stating therein that identical relief with 
regard to injunction having been sought in the Divorce Petition, the same 
cannot be granted at an interim stage. The appellant had also contended 
before the Family Court that he being the owner of the flat, cannot be 
deprived from using his house. It is also the case of the appellant-husband 
that the all~gations made by the respondent-wife are not supported by 
way of anything on record and that the wife owns a flat jointly with her 
mother at Tardeo and another one on pagadi basis. 
6. The Divorce Petition has been filed on the ground of cruelty 
and the respondent-wife had alleged in the application seeking interim 
relief that she had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty due to 
which living under one roof with the appellant-husband has become 
impossible. Even the daughters who have filed their respective affidavits 
have supported the stand taken by their mother namely the respondent. 
The counsel further st(lted that the husband was owing a flat jointly with 
his mother and is just five minutes walking distance from the matrimonial 
home and that no inconvenience would be caused to him. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
92 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
· (2017] 4 S.C.R. 
7. The Family Court passed the interim order on 13.12.2016 
directing the appellant-husband to remove himself out of the matrimonial 
house and not to visit the same till the decision of the divorce petition. 
Aggrieved by the interim order passed by the Family Court, the appellant-
husband approached the High Court by way of a writ petition stating 
therein that final relief sought in the main petition could not have been 
granted at interim stage; h~ being a co-owner oqhe premises, he cannot 
be ·evicted from that premises which amounted to his vi1tual dispossession 
of the premises of which he was a co-owner. It was urged that there is 
no independent/corroborative .evidence to suppo1t the claini of domestic 
violence and impugned order is harsher than temporary injunction. 
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
9. The only issue to.be addressed i.n this case is whether the order 
directing appellant-husband to remove himself from the matrimonial home 
of which he is a co-owner warrants interference. 
10. It is an undisputed fact that the property is a shared household 
of the parties. The appellant-husband is working with the Taj Group of 
Hotels and the respondent-wife is working as an airhostess with the 
British Airways. As is seen from the organisations in which they are 
working, bofh the appellant and the respondent are independent and having 
their OWn source of income. We have gone through
the allegations of 
domestic violence made not only by the.respondent-wife but also in the 
affidavits filed by their grown up daughters wherein they have expressed 
their feelings in view of the dispute between their parents and also their 
feelings as to the conduct of their father at home. We do not propose to 
go into those avermeiits in the affidavit sworn in by the daughters, lest it 
would prejudice either parties while contesting the main matter. 
11. Section 19( 1 )(b) of the Protection of Women Domestic 
Violence Act provides tliat the Court may direct the appellant-husband 
to remove himself from the shared household. The order passed under 
Section 19 of the Act seeks to maintairi continued and undisturbed 
residence of the aggrieved pa1ty within the shared household and in 
pursuance of same it directs the respondent to execute a bond with or 
without surety or secure im alternate accommodation for the aggrieved 
party and pay the rent for the same and restrafr1s the respondent from or 
renouncing property rights or valuable security of the aggrieved party.
SAMIR VIDYASAGAR BHARDWAJ v. NANDITA SAMIR 
BHARDWAJ [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
12. The Family Court arrived at a finding that primafacie material 
was available 011 record to accept the allegation of the respondent-wife 
011 domestic vio1ence wl1erein the concerned Judge had exercised his 
discretioi1 under Section 19( l)(b) of the' Doiri~stic Violence Act which 
provides that the Magistrate on being satisfi¢d that domestic violence 
·has taken place can remove the spouse from the shared household which 
(' . 
I 
in our opinion he has rightly done. Exercise of discretion by Family Court 
cani1ot be said to be perverse warriti1ti1ig'interfore1foe.·Tlie High Court 
· ~hile declining to interfere with the o_rder has also considered th~ factual 
and legal position. 
. , , . 
, 1 
,, 
, 1~ ""·' 
• . 
, . 
. · . 13. Having gone through the orders of the High Com1 and the 
·Family Court and considerii1g the fact that the daughters are grown up, 
'we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 136 of the 
Constitution oflndia at the interlocutory stage. The appeal is dismissed. 
We direct the Family Court, Sandra, Mumbai to expedite tl1e hearing in 
the Divorce Petition and dispose the same expeditiously. We make it 
clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 
The Family Court shall try and dispose of the case uiiintluei1ced by any 
observations or findings either in the impugned order or this order. No 
"costs:. 
\'. 
. ... 
l' 
·~ 
Kalpana
K., Tripalhy 
I 
(. 
'''" 
• ~ 
I 
1~,,' 
f(\ 
/ 
!"\11\\1 
.,,.,... 
- '\ 
' \ 
,• - '-
I 
\, ,) 
~.'. 
' 
I 
,._, . , ...•. 
I· ·,·".\I I 
~.ti" · ~\'.~'. 1.• 'Appeal dismissed. 
' 
, 
.~ 
. 
l 
.1 
. . 
• .··. 
1.-
f 
\ \H' 
f d 
1 
·~ 
. 
\ 
I I• ~ \ ... • 
-
• 
' • .I 
~ 
'\ 1-1\'!·1 
l\',I' : I Jo• .,t \ 1 1 I,,,.\ 
·,•\ 
,\'-J\ 
' 
"\'.>"! , .•• \,\\ 
• ,1.1 
r · l 
I 
\J\\,,;~ 
'~"\\_.. ., l~~~·tar\r .; 
' 
' 
\ , '\\. ~~ 
·_ 
~ \." .. · 
'. 
I i\ 
\ 
. 
f 
• 
\\_' ~' l 
• 
: '" ··~ 
" , 1 \. 
l 
,I 
f'IJ." 
1_,/,• 
"l\'l 
. \•I,,,\ 
j\\'. 
~ 
L\ 
I '. 
,!: L 
\ 
:· 
\~ J 
j\\\ 
. \ 
(\~ 
,l I, 
) 
. , 1001 '.l'd I d lfrrt JL,.I 1"·,J 
,i.!li'· ( !'.:) II'. II 1it·J'Jt' .JJ ,· 
,·.;n:ll.! 
"'1 
.; J. J 
·i 
.-· .• , 
li..o1.I ... ,~ ~-"'~ 
dJ 
~d ft,rl ,r ~Hli··: i. ';:.. 
·,.;r:i:o ui "'.t' ....... , l · •
1 
: •• ~ •• ,. t.i • .:.ui:.11•' _r:1 L• 1 
~ 
t:.J:J~-1":4 <1• 11 
,..._...,"J,UI·· -l, ! 
93 
A 
B 
c 
D