M NIRMALA Vs. GANDIA BALAKOTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision filed by the petitioner against an order passed in I. A. No. 330 of 2007 in F. C. O. P. No. 186 of 2007. The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. The wife filed an application under order 39 read with Section 151 of C. P. C. seeking an injunction against her husband from dispossessing her from the schedule property. In this connection, she relied on section 19 of the Protection of Women from domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'the act' ). In her affidavit before the trial Court, she stated that she had filed an O. P. for perpetual injunction. She submitted that respondent had purchased the schedule property from out of the funds given by her and her family members, but the property was purchased in the name of the respondent in the year 1996. From February, 1997, she was staying in the said property. The same was their matrimonial home. Due to the differences between the couple, they started living separately. She continued to live in the same house. She submitted that the respondent had been resorting to several tactics in order to dispossess her from the petition schedule property and he was sending strangers to the house, who, in turn, were claiming that they were prospective purchasers of that house. The said persons were threatening her that if she did not vacate the premises, she would be dealt with severely. On 21. 4. 2007, two persons came to her claiming to be the purchasers of the property and threatened her to leave the premises. She stated that the schedule property was the matrimonial home and she was entitled to reside there apart from being the real owner of the same.

(2.) IN the counter-affidavit filed by respondent, he stated that he had purchased the property from out of his own funds and neither the petitioner nor her family members contributed any amount in purchasing the same and agreed that since February, 1997, the petitioner is staying in the petition schedule property; that due to differences, he started living separately and the petitioner is living in the same premises. He submitted that he did not send any persons to dispossess the petitioner. He stated that he has sold the property to one Sri P. Subbaiah through a registered sale-deed on 16. 4. 2007 bearing document No. 921 of 2007 and has also delivered symbolic possession. He also submitted that he had purchased the property by raising a housing loan from a bank. Since he had suffered some problems relating to his health and had incurred expenses, he could not pay installments towards housing loan. Thereafter, the banker identified the purchaser and sold the property. He also stated that he recognized the right of the petitioner for shelter and without prejudice to his contention, he was ready to provide alternative accommodation to her by paying a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month towards rent for the premises chosen by her.

(3.) THE Family Court dismissed the petition, but directed the respondent to pay a sum of rs. 3,500/- per month towards rent. This order is challenged now by the wife on the ground that she was entitled to the possession of the matrimonial house in terms of section 19 of the Act.