VANDHANA Vs. T SRIKANTH AND KRISHNAMACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PENDING Suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing or interfering with the plaintiff-s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has come up with the present Application for an interim order of injunction of similar nature.

(2.) I have heard Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff and Mr. S.M. Loganathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants.

(3.) MR. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff contended that in view of the provisions of Section 2(f), 2(s) and 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the applicant/plaintiff has a right to reside in the -shared household- with the first respondent/first defendant. Learned counsel also contended that a legally wedded wife cannot so easily be thrown out from her matrimonial home and relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in B.P. Achala Anand v. S. Appi Reddy and Another , 2005 (3) SCC 313 and Ruma Chakraborty v. Sudha Rani Banerjee and Another , 2005 (5) CTC 226 : 2005 (8) SCC 140.