K.J. MATHIYALAGAN Vs. DHIVYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) The respondent herein/petitioner farther stated that her living status is in a pathetic state and that she is unable to continue her studies since she is living as a tenant. Her father also has lot of immovable properties. Therefore, she has sought accommodation for herself in the said house. She further stated that her father also had accepted her as his daughter. She has further stated that her mother Usha Rani was aged 49 years old and that she is unemployed and has no source of income to maintain her. Therefore, she has stated that she is willing to living with her father in her father's place, but her father's first wife and her children had not allowed her to live with her father. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to provide her accommodation in her father's house under Section 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

(3.) The respondent herein/petitioner further stated that her father is the owner of one big house consisting of two floors, in which, only two persons are residing. Hence, it was submitted that the respondent herein being the daughter of the first revision petitioner is entitled to live with her father in the said house situated at Old No. 15, New No. 6, Vaigai Street, Chinmaya Nagar, Stage-II, Virugambakkam, Chennai-92. The respondent further stated that the learned I Additional Family Court had granted maintenance to her in M.C. No. 114 of 2007. Under the circumstances, the revision petitioner herein had created a so-called settlement deed in favour of his son with an intention to deny the respondent of her rights over the property. Her father had also made a complaint against her. The police had also conducted enquiry on the said complaint and advised her father not to take part in any illegal activities against the respondent herein. The other children, being the married sons are living separately and away from their father. Therefore, the respondent has real fear of violence from the revision petitioners herein, if she entered into the shared house property as she fears that she would be threatened. The first petitioner is a serving leading doctor and getting pension. Besides, he is a Consultant doctor at M.R. Hospital, Arumbakkam, S.K. Nursing Home, Vadapalani besides other hospitals in Chennai.