A divorced wife cannot claim residence in a property owned by her ex-husband's family as a shared household, particularly after the marriage is dissolved.

JUDGMENT

Sophy Thomas, J.

The 1st respondent in OP No.1697 of 2013 on the file of Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is the appellant herein, challenging the judgment dated 17.02.2023.

2. OP No.1697 of 2013 was filed by the father-in-law and sister-in-law of the appellant for recovery of possession of building No.TC 7/1491 with mesne profits. The 2nd respondent therein was her husband.

3. The petitioners in the OP contended that, the petition schedule building and 95 cents of land comprised in survey No.1531 of Ulloor village belonged to Smt.Sreenidhi Devi, the wife of the 1st petitioner and the mother of 2nd petitioner and 2nd respondent. After her death, partition was effected among her legal heirs by which the 2nd petitioner obtained the plot including the petition schedule building. The 2nd respondent married the 1st respondent in the year 1994 and thereafter they were living in the petition schedule building. But, subsequently, they got separated and their marriage was dissolved as per the decree dated 02.12.2015 in Mat.Appeal No.312 of 2007. After effecting partition, the petitioners filed OP No.1697 of 2013 for getting recovery of possession of the schedule building from the 1st respondent with mesne profits @ Rs.4,000/- per month. She vehemently opposed that OP contending that, it was her matrimonial home and since marriage she was residing there with her husband and children, and it is her shared household and so, she cannot be evicted therefrom.

4. The Family Court formulated necessary issues and the parties went on trial by marking Exts.A1 to A15 from the side of the petitioners and examining DW1 and marking Exts.B1 to B19 from the side of the 1st respondent.

5. After hearing both sides, learned Family Court partly decreed the OP, denying mesne profits, and directing the 1st respondent to hand over vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the 2nd petitioner within a period of four months and in case of default, the 2nd petitioner was permitted to evict her as per due process of law. Aggrieved by that judgment and decree, the 1st respondent has preferred this appeal.

6. Now let us see whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

8. For the purpose of convenience, the parties shall be addressed according to their status in the Mat.Appeal.

9. Admittedly, the marriage between the appellant and 3rd respondent was solemnised on 17.05.1994. After marriage, they were living together in the petition schedule house along with the parents of the 3rd respondent. 95 cents of property and two buildings situated therein, originally belonged to the mother of the 3rd respondent. She died in the year 1995. Thereafter the respondents, who are her legal heirs, effected partition of that property, by which the petition schedule building was included in the share of the 2nd respondent. The matrimonial life of the appellant and the 3rd respondent went into rough weather, and they started living separate. The respondents 1 and 2 filed OP No.1697 of 2013 for recovery of possession of the petition schedule building from the appellant as that building absolutely belonged to the 2nd respondent. Though the appellant vehemently opposed that petition, the Family Court found that, she had no right, title or interest over that property, as the marriage between the appellant and 3rd respondent was dissolved as early as in the year 2015.

10. The