Abusive husband can’t enter matrimonial home

An abusive husband cannot be permitted to enter the matrimonial home he shared with his wife, the Bombay high court observed on Friday, in order to secure the wife and children from further domestic violence, reports Kanchan Chaudhari.

An abusive husband cannot be permitted to enter the matrimonial home he shared with his wife, the Bombay high court observed on Friday, in order to secure the wife and children from further domestic violence.

HT Image

“A violent husband cannot be allowed to enter matrimonial home to cause more violence,” said justice Roshan Dalvi.

“From past incidences of physical domestic violence, prima facie case is made out against the husband, and therefore he cannot be allowed to enter the matrimonial home, at least while the wife’s petition for judicial separation is pending,” the judge noted.

The restraining interim order strikes down an order of the family court at Bandra that allowed a purportedly abusive husband to use and occupy one bedroom and common passages in his Bandra (West) residence.

The Christian couple had tied the knot in June 1988 and has three children.

Their dispute started some time prior to April 2009 and subsequently the woman approached the family court.

In a pending petition for judicial separation, the husband filed a plea seeking permission to enter their matrimonial home and on March 14, 2013, the family court allowed him to use and occupy one bedroom, common passages and the kitchen in their house. The woman then challenged the order in the high court.

On Friday, the husband's counsel Pradip Chavan contended that the matrimonial home consisted of two adjacent flats with separate entries and that the husband could easily be accommodated in one of the flats.

Justice Dalvi, however, discarded the averments, stating it was an endeavour on the part of the husband to breach domestic peace and, hence, he cannot be allowed to enter the matrimonial home.

Apart from specific instances of physical abuse alleged by the 46-year-old woman, the judge took into consideration the fact that the 52-year-old man had another house in the same locality and has on his own left the matrimonial home from April 2009.