The appellant is the wife of respondent 1 herein and the couple were married on 30.11.1998 at Madurai and out of the wedlock, they have a girl child by name Shruthi, who is ten years old. In her petition filed under Chapter III of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 read with Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1959, she contended that her husband, soon after the marriage, showed lack of interest and exhibited abnormal behaviour and went on changing his job and ultimately withdrew from matrimonial home in April 2003.

2. It was also the case of the appellant before the Family Court in her petition that several demands were made by respondent 1 husband on the appellant and she was insulted by Respondent 1 husband and was subjected to harassment and cruelty. She came to Bangalore in September 2000 along with her daughter and lived with the respondent-husband, but situation did not improve and again, the appellant had to go to her parental house and stayed there till May 2003. However, with the hope of saving the married life, the appellant contacted her husband and he in turn agreed to take care of the child’s welfare but did not show any inclination to continue to lead marital life with the appellant. It was also her case before the Family Court that her husband took her to Cochin and left her and the child and went to Mumbai.

3. Making further averment in the petition before the Family Court as regards harassment to which she was subjected to and refusal on the part of her husband to resume marital life, the appellant prayed for a judgment and decree to restore the conjugal rights of the parties and for maintenance to be paid to the appellant and her daughter at Rs. 40,000/- per month till the court restores the conjugal rights of the parties.

4. The respondent-husband, on his part, denied the petition averments in toto and also took up the stand that he was not earning any income from the business and he had undergone severe loss and also stated that he had purchased the suit schedule property in the year 2004 for Rs.20,00,0000/- and had borrowed Rs.17,00,000/- from Standard Chartered Bank and deposited the title deeds in the bank. He also took up the contention that the appellant was not entitled to any exclusive right to reside in the house belonging to him while admitting that the appellant is currently staying in the apartment that was purchased by him.

5. I.A.Nos.2 and 3 were filed by the appellant and maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month was sought in I.A.No.2 and I.A.No.3 was under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying for an order of injunction against the respondent and other persons from interfering with the appellant’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

6. Respondent-husband filed his objections to the said I.As. and the learned judge of the Family Court passed the impugned order on 18.10.2008 and allowed I.A.No.2, while was for interim maintenance and ordered that the respondent-husband shall pay Rs.5000/- per month from the date of the application for interim maintenance to the appellant and her daughter (by mistake mentioned as son in the impugned order), and I.A.No.3 filed by the appellant, however, was dismissed. This appeal by the wife is mainly directed against the rejection of I.A.No.3 by the Family Court.

7. I have heard learned counsel Shri Joshua H. Samuel for the appellant and learned counsel Smt. M.P. Geetha Devi for Respondent-1 husband and also learned counsel Shri B.C. Avinash for Respondent-2 Standard Chartered Bank.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the main grievance of the appellant is that the Family Court ought to have permitted her to reside in the suit schedule property i.e., the apartment which is owner by her husband, and right of residence is an inalienable right being a component of right of maintenance and the court below ought not to have rejected I.A.No.3 filed by her. It was also submitt