1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 4th January, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Senior Judge allowing an appeal of the respondent against order dated 24.5.2005 of Civil Judge dismissing an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

2. The respondents had filed a suit making petitioner, their son and in-laws of the son as defendants wherein they prayed for permanent injunction. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was made that the petitioner and other respondents be restrained from forcibly and illegally entering into their house No. B-2/23, Phase-II, Ashok Vihar and from interfering with their peaceful living. The petitioner is wife of Sh. Vikas Mittal son of respondents, Smt. Kanta Mittal and Sh. Ram Kishan Mittal.

3. The learned Senior Civil Judge while allowing appeal observed that wife has a right to live in the matrimonial home after marriage but there was no specific definition of matrimonial home. However, matrimonial home was not just a building made of bricks and walls. It was a home/place comprising of sweetness of relations of family members and elders, full of blessing. In the matrimonial home, matrimonial rights and obligations are to be equally observed. Practically speaking, the residence of husband should be the home of the wife where both the spouses have equal right to reside.

4. The learned Senior Civil Jude found that in this case, the respondents were parents of Sh. Vikas Mittal and in-laws of Neetu Mittal (petitioner). They had separated from their son. The son had taken a flat in Rohini for his own residence and residence of his wife. The son and his wife had agreed to shift there on 10th May, 2005 under a compromise arrived at Police Station. However, the wife did not stay in the flat at Rohini. Her grievance was that flat was not habitable due to deficiency of fan, cooler, etc. Thereafter, she asserted that she had a right to live in her in-laws house in Ashok Vihar and she wanted to forcibly live there which compelled respondents no. 1 and 2 to file the suit. The learned Senior Civil Judge found that the respondents were aged parents. They had shown by filing medical record that they were suffering from various ailments and at this age of their life they have a right to live peacefully at their home. Since the relations of petitioner were not cordial with them, there was every likelihood of breach of peace to the detriment to their mental and physical health. Due regards have to be given to their rights. It was a admitted fact that the respondents and petitioner could not live together under one roof with peace and harmony. The common use of dining and one kitchen would create further problems and a situation may come when parties may everyday land up at Police station or in the Court, fighting on minor issues.

5. Learned Sr. Civil Judge also observed that the respondents(parents) even apprehend danger to their lives and dignity, as per the complaint made by them to the Police. Under these circumstances, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and restrained the defendants (petitioner herein) from forcibly entering into their house and disturbing the peaceful possession of the respondents.

.6. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner being wife of son of respondents no. 1 and 2 has a right to live in the matrimonial home and no injunction could legally have been issued by the learned Civil Judge. She referred to Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and argued that the right of women to live in the shared household was to be protected by every Court and the house of in-laws was a shared household and a matrimonial home and she had a right to live there.

7. In S.R. Batra vs. Taruna Batra AIR 2007 SC 1118, Supreme Court observed as under: “16. There is no such law in India, like the British Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967 and in any case, the rights which may be available under any law can only