Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.T.DINESH, AJIRAJ G.R.
For the Respondent ADV.LUKE J CHIRAYIL, ADV.AMAL JOSE, ADV.ELSA MARY THOMAS, ADV.JASNI JALAL, SMT SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Key Points: - The right to residence under the PWDV Act is not absolute and must be balanced against the rights of other family members. (!) - The maintenance obligation is essential for the aggrieved party’s livelihood and must be determined by balancing the financial capacities of both parties. (!) (!) - The revision petition partially allowed: the respondent must pay Rs.3,000 as monthly rent for alternative accommodation and Rs.4,000 as monthly maintenance to the wife, with the wife vacating the shared household within two months. (!) (!) (!) - The appellate court’s enhancement of maintenance to Rs.7,500 was reconsidered; the court determined maintenance at Rs.4,000 per month based on the petitioner’s income and relevant factors. (!) (!) - The first respondent is entitled to a suitable alternative accommodation and the petitioner must provide rent for that accommodation. (!) (!) - The court noted that the wife’s ability to earn as a qualified nurse and employment history may influence maintenance, but subsequent evidence must be grounded in the record; the revision held maintenance at Rs.4,000. (!) (!) (!)

What is the scope of the right to residence under the PWDV Act and how must it be balanced with other family members' rights?

What is the appropriate maintenance and alternative accommodation order for the aggrieved party under the PWDV Act in this revision petition?

What factors determine the quantum of maintenance and the obligation of the respondent to provide maintenance and/or rent for alternative accommodation?