Criminal Trident Pack: IPC, CrPC and IEA by Sr. Adv. G.S Shukla and Adv. Raghav Arora
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

Divorced woman can't be evicted from home:SC

 

Divorced woman can’t be evicted from home:SC

November 22, 2011



A Hindu woman cannot be evicted from the matrimonial home after divorce except through procedure established by law, as there is no provision for her automatic eviction, the Supreme Court has ruled. A bench of justice GS Singhvi and justice SD Mukhopadhyay, in a judgment, said though a woman may not have a legal right to continue in the house of the ex-husband, yet the latter cannot forcibly evict her.

The court gave the ruling while upholding an appeal filed by Ranjit Kaur challenging the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana HC which had upheld her eviction from the house of a disputed property upon a decree of divorce granted to the husband Major Harmohinder Singh, an army officer.



“...even though in the decree of divorce, the appellant has not been given a right of residence and her occupation of the suit property can be treated as unauthorised, respondent No 1 (Singh) cannot evict her except after following the procedure established by law.



“The material placed on record shows that the appellant had entered into the property as the wife of respondent No. 1.



Therefore, even though, after passing of the decree of the divorce she may not have a legal right to continue to remain in possession of the suit property, respondent No. 1 cannot be given liberty to forcibly evict her,” the bench said.

The apex court, however, rejected the plea of the woman that Singh should be restrained from alienating the suit property (house).

The couple was staying at the disputed property in SAS Nagar, Mohali. They were married in 1978.

 

A decree of divorce was granted on October 4, 2001, in favour of the husband who had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.



Learning

 19 Replies


(Guest)

yes published in today's newspaper. ridiculous.


(Guest)

very welcum judgement.thnx fr sharing.

Adv Yogesh Bhardwaj (Proprietor)     22 November 2011

Need the Citation on this Judgment...

Can anyone pls help...

Rajeev Kumar (Lawyer/Advocate)     22 November 2011

It is very ridiculous

Nadeem Qureshi (Advocate/ nadeemqureshi1@gmail.com)     22 November 2011

thanks for this information, its very useful

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     22 November 2011

as there is no provision for her (automatic) eviction


1. It is not ridiculous at all

Reasoning:
A. During Divorce until and unless wife says "expressly that she gives away her right to residence POST DIVORCE" no legal provision gets attracted post divorce in such moments of hard hitting truth. A divorced wife’s right to residence does not subsist with her dissolved marriage if this quote she has not expressly mentioned during the proceedings at some or the other stage.
J


B. Many Adv. of Husbands side in heat of getting quickly divorce take shortcut by not advising husbands to get above quote - unquote settled during divorce proceedings as material records thus Hon'ble SC is very correct in observing as underlined by Kushan and same agreed by me by modifying it with brackets as both situation are confirmed legal positions. 

kunal soni (litigation)     22 November 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9748-9749 OF 2011

 

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19714-15 of 2009)

 

Ranjit Kaur ..…Appellant

 

versus

 

Major Harmohinder Singh and others ……Respondents

rajiv_lodha (zz)     22 November 2011

Originally posted by :Tajobsindia
"
as there is no provision for her (automatic) eviction


1. It is not ridiculous at all

Reasoning:
A. During Divorce until and unless wife says "expressly that she gives away her right to residence POST DIVORCE" no legal provision gets attracted post divorce in such moments of hard hitting truth. A divorced wife’s right to residence does not subsist with her dissolved marriage if this quote she has not expressly mentioned during the proceedings at some or the other stage.J


B. Many Adv. of Husbands side in heat of getting quickly divorce take shortcut by not advising husbands to get above quote - unquote settled during divorce proceedings as material records thus Hon'ble SC is very correct in observing as underlined by Kushan and same agreed by me by modifying it with brackets as both situation are confirmed legal positions. 
"

Thanx Tajob 4 putting light, but see, man obtained a contested divorce (cruelty) & not MCD. How this clause suggested by u may be incorporated in such a case in these divorce proceedings, so as to avoid further trouble!

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     22 November 2011

 

 

Originally posted by :rajiv_lodha

"

Thanx Tajob 4 putting light, but see, man obtained a contested divorce (cruelty) & not MCD. How this clause suggested by u may be incorporated in such a case in these divorce proceedings, so as to avoid further trouble!

"

100% agreed to your observation

1. YES it is a “CLAUSE” under MCD rightly observed by u.


2. But the moment 'contested divorce' start happening "bring her to such a situation where she ends up saying abv. quote n unquote then it becomes a doctrine"
[such wisdom gets copyrighted only by @ tajobsindia 
J]


BTW I am aware that you CAN DO IT when situation 2 arises.
How is not the que. here but ‘during WHEN’ and here ‘WHEN’ is the constant driving force for such one time self case achievements in larger public interest when with drop of her eyelash parents property gets free riders who becomes tough to evict later in the absence of following first the doctrine then everything else cometh.............
J


So by now you might have understood the catch word is not “incorporation” but “arising a situation” during proceedings that she ends up saying so …….

rajiv_lodha (zz)     22 November 2011

Hmmm......Very difficult Pal!

U know a crook lawyer is always behind such girl as nt to fall in such a trap

With real-estate booming especially in metros, these neo-terrorists will definitely use these measures as LAND GRABBING TOOLS, leave asidematrimonial disputes.

Want 2 discuss another safety measure: If parents/u get CIVIL INJUNCTION, is it an effective shield against such a shark!

1 Like

Shonee Kapoor (Legal Evangelist - TRIPAKSHA)     22 November 2011

Agreed with Tajobs,

 

Things have to be decided beforehand. And judgements based on certain facts have to be seen in that light only.

 

 

Regards,
 
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

Agneepath (Software Engineer)     23 November 2011

Very soon women will routinely burn husbands, seize their house, throw the in-laws out, and still file a Domestic Violence case on them :). Happy lawyers (until it doesn't happen to them), unhappy rest of the country.

Sameer12345 (SSE)     23 November 2011

@Agneepath...

Truly said.... 

rajiv_lodha (zz)     25 November 2011

Lawmakers & psudo faminists are laughing at the plight of poor husbands & their aged parents!

Soon there will be a general rise in matrimonial crime & a state of SOCIAL ANARCHY in our country. Worst sufferers will be old ppl & tiny ones!

God! one has to pay the price of taking birth in such hypocritic country


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Recent Topics


View More

Related Threads


Loading
Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads



Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query