V MALA VISWANATHAN Vs. P B VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife-appellant has preferred this appeal against order No. 19 dated 22nd of December, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Alipore, in Matrimonial Suit No. 22 of 1999 granting an injunction restraining the wife-appellant from making any attempt of forceful entry in her matrimonial house till the disposal of the matrimonial suit. Submission on behalf of the Appellant:

(2.) Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there cannot be an injunction restraining one of the spouse from entering into the matrimonial house of which she becomes a part, relying on paragraph 31 of the decision in Valsamma Paul (Mrs.) v. Cochin University & Ors., reported in (1996)3 SCC 545. He had also relied on Pinckney v. Pinckney, reported in (1966)1 All ER 121 in order to contend that one of the spouse cannot be ousted from the house. Therefore, the impugned order appealed against cannot be sustained.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that Order 19 Rule 3 of the Code provides for the manner in which the affidavit is to be affirmed. According to him, the statements, which are true to the knowledge, are to be stated clearly and properly and those, which are based on belief, are to be supported by grounds on which they are based. Relying on the affidavit affirming the objection to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code filed by the appellant, he points out that it has not been properly affirmed. As such, no reliance can be placed thereon. Therefore, on the basis of the statements made in paragraph 27 of the application for injunction, the Court had rightly granted injunction. He relied on the decision in Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi and Ors., reported in (1987)1 SCC 227 (paragraph 33). He contended that unless the belief is properly grounded, the same is not admissible, as was held in the said decision.