Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.:- Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful use and occupation of the plaintiff in House No. 334, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, and also for restraining the defendant from obstructing entry of the plaintiff into the premises and exit of the plaintiff from out of the said premises. Plaintiff also filed an interlocutory application seeking interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. Trial Court allowed the application. Lower appellate Court also having concurred with the decision of the trial Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant has come up with the present revision.

2. Plaintiff has contended that he is the husband of the defendant. It is his further contention that the plaintiff and the defendant are residing in House No. 334, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, ever since the date of their wedlock. They have also been blessed with two minor daughters. The suit property was settled by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant by virtue of gift-deed dated 7.5.2005 under threat, intimidation and undue pressure exerted by the defendant upon the plaintiff. It is alleged that the defendant assaulted the plaintiff on 17.7.2012 which culminated in the registration of FIR No. 147 dated 17.7.2012 under Sections 323, 506 IPC. The said case was compromised between the parties and both the plaintiff and the defendant started residing together in the house and as a result of which the above First Information Report was quashed by the High Court. Thereafter, the defendant made a complaint before the police on 5.9.2012 and got registered an FIR against the plaintiff with a false allegation that the plaintiff hit the defendant. In fact the defendant fell on the ground and sustained injuries. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant is interfering in the peaceful use and occupation of the suit premises by the plaintiff. Having thus alleged, the plaintiff has sought for interim injunction.

3. It is contended by the defendant that she has filed suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff and his family members which is still pending adjudication before the Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Chandigarh. Defendant has also filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, apprehending physical and mental torture at the hands of the plaintiff. Defendant along with her daughters is staying in the suit property. Even in the year 2002, plaintiff gave severe beatings to the defendant but the same was not reported to the police. The defendant is the exclusive owner of the suit property; therefore, no injunction can be granted against a lawful owner. Defendant has sought for dismissal of the application praying for interim injunction.

4. Trial Court having held that though the plaintiff appears to be owner of the demised premises as per gift-deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, the plaintiff-husband is entitled to reside in the shared house-hold along with his wife. The wife cannot oust her husband by using force. Trial Court also made an observation that even though the possession is illegal, the plaintiff cannot be thrown out of the house by the defendant by use of force. Having thus observed, the trial Court granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

5. In the appeal preferred by the defendant aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the first appellate Court having observed that the plaintiff who has been in settled possession of the suit property, earlier as member of the Joint Hindu Family, thereafter as owner of the suit property and finally as husband of the defendant, cannot be thrown out of the suit premises by the defendant. First appellate Court ultimately dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant-revision petitioner would submit that the defendant has becom