BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

1. This appeal raises interesting issues with regard to the concepts of „matrimonial home' and „shared-household' and also concerning the right of residence of a wife in the matrimonial home, shared-household or some other place.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and / or order dated 02.07.2007 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in IA Nos.291/2005 and 8444/2005 in CS(OS) 41/2005. The suit had been filed by the appellant against her husband, Mr Sanjay Singh Sandhu (defendant No.1), her father-in-law, Mr Hardev Singh Sandhu (defendant No.2) (since deceased) and her mother-in-law, Mrs Shiela Sandhu (defendant No.3). During the pendency of the suit as also the said applications, the appellant's father-in-law (the said defendant No.2) passed away and his legal representatives, being his widow (Mrs Sheila Sandhu), son (Mr Sanjay Singh Sandhu), daughter, Mrs Zoya Mohan and another daughter (Mrs Tani Sandhu Bhargava), were brought on record.

3. In the said suit, the appellant / plaintiff had sought the following reliefs:-

“(a) Grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from committing themselves or through their agents / representatives acts of violence and intimidation against the plaintiff; (b) Grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and their agents / representatives from forcibly dispossessing the Plaintiff out of her matrimonial home without due process of law; (c) Grant any other / further relief / relief (s) as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

4. In IA No.291/2005, the appellant / plaintiff sought an interim order restraining the defendants from dispossessing her from her „matrimonial home', which, according to her, was the property at 18-A, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi. It is her case that she was occupying the first floor of the said property and there was imminent danger of her being dispossessed from the said portion of the said property without following the due process of law. IA No.8444/2005 was filed by the appellant / plaintiff seeking interim orders restraining the defendants from creating any third party rights in the said property. The said applications were dismissed by the learned single Judge by virtue of the impugned order dated 02.07.2007. The learned single Judge was of the view that the plaintiff could not claim any right to stay in the said property as it did not belong to her husband (defendant No.1), but it belonged to her parents-in-law. Taking note of the statement under Order 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 made by the defendant No.2 that the defendants have no intention to throw out the plaintiff from the first floor of the said property, which is occupied by her, without following the due process of law, the learned single Judge ordered that the said defendants would be bound by the statement. However, the learned single Judge clarified that this would not prevent the defendants 2 and 3 from taking recourse to law for dispossessing the plaintiff.

5. The learned single Judge in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment and / or order observed as under:-

“There is no dispute that the suit property belongs to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff's husband, namely, the defendant No.1 has no share and / or interest in the same.” Again in para 9 of the impugned judgment / order, the learned single Judge observed that:- “The question for prima facie consideration is as to whether the plaintiff has any right to stay in the suit property in which her husband has no right, interest or share and belongs to her father-in-law and mother-in-law. Incidental question for determination is as to whether it could be treated as matrimonial home of the plaintiff?”

6. The learned single Judge, it is obvious from the aforesaid extracts, proceeded on the basis that the said property belonged to defendant Nos. 2 and