Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, JJ
Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff - Appellant
Versus
Poonam Jaidev Shroff - Respondent
I.A. Nos. 59776 and 60354 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2017
Decided on : 03-12-2021
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 2(s) – Right to reside in shared household (Matrimonial Home) – Relations between parties are strained to such an extent that even efforts made by this Court to arrive at a settlement by personally discussing the matter in Chambers with them, have failed – Mediation proceedings could not succeed – In such a situation, to compel parties to live together in one house, would not be in interest of either of parties – With history of such acrimony and filing of criminal cases against each other, such an order, rather than benefiting the parties, would be detrimental to their interests – In Architect’s opinion, properties in the list are similar to the house and that they have made their best efforts to provide a suitable accommodation to respondent-wife as per her liking and will – Shortlisted properties in upscale locales assuredly possess potential to exhibit desired degree of luxe and comfort as expected by respondent-wife – Word ‘similar’ has to be construed as providing same degree of luxury and comfort as is available in said house – Conduct of respondent-wife in firstly not choosing any house as per her choice and secondly, in rejecting all properties, which have been identified by Architect, only on the ground that they are not similar, is unreasonable – Family Court, by an elaborate order, after recording details about income of parties, had directed interim maintenance to be paid to respondent-wife at the rate of Rs. 7 lakhs per month and to minor at the rate of Rs. 5 lakhs per month – If prayer for payment of an amount is allowed, it will be giving an additional amount to respondent-wife – It will amount to awarding an amount which is much more than one to which respondent-wife was found entitled by Family Court – Order of status quo need not be vacated – Interlocutory applications rejected – However, in the event, respondent-wife decides to shift to any of properties mentioned in list annexed with report of Architect or she locates any of rented premises as per her choice, appellant-husband shall pay rent of said premises from the date on which such premises are taken on rent – However, taking into consideration that highest rent of properties identified by Architect is Rs. 30 lakhs per month, appellant-husband would be liable to pay rent to maximum of Rs. 30 lakhs per month. (Paras 19, 21, 23 to 28)
Facts of the case:
These two interlocutory applications filed by Respondent-wife are part of series of a long drawn acrimonious litigation between the husband and wife. Appellant-husband filed a divorce petition before the Family Court. According to appellant-husband, respondent-wife along with their daughter went to her mother’s residence. The appellant-husband thereafter filed application seeking an order of injunction restraining respondent-wife from entering the said house. The Family Court vide order dated 22nd April 2016, allowed the said application, thereby granting an injunction restraining respondent-wife from entering the said house. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Family Court dated 22nd April 2016, respondent-wife filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. Vide order dated 24th October 2016, the High Court allowed the said writ petition filed by the respondent-wife. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant-husband has approached this Court. That is how the main appeal has travelled up to this Court.
Findings of Court:
Divorce petition has been pending before the Family Court for a period of last 6 years. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be in the interest of both parties that the divorce petition pending before the Family Court is decided expeditiously so that there can be at least some quietus to the acrimonious litigation pending between the parties.
Result : Interlocutory Applications rejected.
ORDER :
B.R. Gavai, J.
1. These two interlocutory applications filed by the respondent-wife are part of series of a long drawn acrimonious litigation between the husband and wife.
2. For the disposal of the present interlocutory applications, we need not refer to the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were married to each other on 27th November 2004. However, the relationship between them soured. Various cases including the FIRs were filed by both the husband and wife against each other.
3. The appellant-husband filed a divorce petition being Petition No. A2742 of 2015 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the “Family Court”) seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The same was filed in the month of October 2015. During the pendency of the said divorce petition, the appellant-husband lodged a complaint against the respondent-wife with the Khar Police Station, making certain serious allegations against the respondent-wife. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR being FIR No. 169 of 2016 came to be registered by the said police station. It is the contention of the appellant-husband that after the said FIR was lodged, the respondent-wife voluntarily left 82, Pali Hill, Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400 050 (hereinafter referred to as the “said house”), wherein the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife were residing together. According to the appellant-husband, the respondent-wife along with their daughter Rudritara went to 38, Pali Hill, Bandra, i.e., her mother’s residence. The appellant-husband thereafter filed an application seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondent-wife from entering the said house. The Family Court vide order dated 22nd April 2016, allowed the said application, thereby granting an injunction restraining the respondent-wife from entering the said house. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Family Court dated 22nd April 2016, the respondent-wife filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 6029 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court. Vide order dated 24th October 2016, the High Court allowed the said writ petition filed by the respondent-wife. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant-husband has approached this Court. That is how the main appeal has travelled up to this Court.
4. Initially, when the matter came up before this Court on 15th November 2016, this Court issued notice only to explore the possibility of an amicable resolution of the dispute. However, this Court in its order dated 27th January 2017, recorded that the settlement between the parties, at that stage, was not possible. This Court, therefore, enlarged the scope of the notice issued by this Court vide the said order and expressed that they were inclined to examine the impugned order of the High Court of Bombay on merits. Vide the said order, this Court also passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo.
5. When this matter was listed before this Court on 14th September 2017, this Court recorded that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the present proceedings, the parties are agreeable to explore the possibility of an amicable resolution of their dispute. As such, by consent, Mrs. Sadhna Ramachandran, Advocate was appointed as a Mediator. It further appears that in order to explore the possibility of amicable settlement, this Court vide order dated 22nd January 2018, directed the parties to remain present in person on 30th January 2018 at 02.00 pm. The order of this Court dated 30th January 2018 would reveal that this Court had discussed the matter in Chambers with the parties to find out some amicable resolution and a week’s time was granted to the parties to think over to come to an amicable resolution. However, vide order dated 13th February 2018, this Court recorded that there is no possibili
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
