Divorce petition presupposes existence of a valid and subsisting marriage as on date.

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. Pending Suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing or interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has come up with the present Application for an interim order of injunction of similar nature.

2. I have heard Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff and Mr. S.M. Loganathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants.

3. A marriage purportedly solemnised at the Venugopala Swamy Temple, Kakinada, East Godavari on 2. 2007 between the applicant/plaintiff and the first respondent/first defendant, was registered in the Office of the Marriage Registrar, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh, under the Hindu Marriage Act. It appears that the members of the families of the applicant/plaintiff and the first respondent/first defendant also decided to have a formal ceremonial social wedding on 16. 2007. But on 16. 2007, the respondents/defendants lodged a police Complaint against the applicant and her parents before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and later before R-8, All Women Police Station, Vadapalani, claiming that the applicant/plaintiff and her parents trespassed into the house of the respondents/defendants on 16. 2007 with rowdy elements. Similarly, the applicant/plaintiff also appears to have lodged a Criminal Complaint against the respondents/defendants herein.

4. In the meantime, the applicant/plaintiff has come up with the present Suit, seeking the relief stated in paragraph-1 above and also seeking an interim order of injunction to the same effect in the present Application.

5. Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff contended that in view of the provisions of Section 2(f), 2(s) and 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the applicant/plaintiff has a right to reside in the “shared household” with the first respondent/first defendant. Learned counsel also contended that a legally wedded wife cannot so easily be thrown out from her matrimonial home and relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in B.P. Achala Anand v. S. Appi Reddy and Another , 2005 (3) SCC 313 and Ruma Chakraborty v. Sudha Rani Banerjee and Another , 2005 (5) CTC 226 : 2005 (8) SCC 140.

6. Per contra , Mr. S.M. Loganathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants contended —

.(a) that the status of the applicant/plaintiff as the wife of the first respondent/first defendant is itself in dispute in proceedings pending before the Family Court and that therefore, the applicant/plaintiff may not be entitled to any protection;

.(b) that there is absolutely no pleading or evidence to show that the applicant/plaintiff came into possession along with the first respondent, of the suit schedule property after the marriage on 2. 2007;

.(c) that in order to invoke the protection granted under Central Act 43 of 2005, the applicant/plaintiff should have lived in the suit schedule property along with the first respondent, without which, the suit property would not become a “shared household”;

.(d) that so long as her possession is not established to have been legally gained and her right to occupation not established, the applicant/plaintiff cannot seek an injunction against a true owner; and

.(e) that a case of trespass had actually been registered against the applicant/plaintiff in R-8, All Women Police Station, Vadapalani under orders of this Court and the respondents/defendants, who are the true owners of the property, are now prevented from enjoying their own property.

7. Mr. S.M. Loganathan, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants relied upon the decision of this Court in Alagi Alamelu Achi v. Ponniah Mudaliar , 1962 (1) MLJ 383, for the proposition that a trespasser cannot be favoured with an injunction against the true owner. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the