Supreme Court Dismisses Wife's Application to Vacate Status Quo in Matrimonial Dispute — Alternative Relief of Rent and Maintenance Granted. The Court upheld the arrangement of alternative accommodation with rent paid by husband, rejecting the wife's claim to return to the matrimonial home.

Interlocutory applications in a civil appeal arising from a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife.

The wife sought to vacate the status quo order and be permitted to reside in the matrimonial home, or alternatively, to receive rent and maintenance for alternative accommodation.

The wife was deprived of staying in the matrimonial home due to a status quo order passed by the Supreme Court, and she sought to enforce her right to reside in the shared household under the DV Act.

The Family Court granted an injunction restraining the wife from entering the matrimonial home on 22 April 2016. The Bombay High Court allowed the wife's writ petition on 24 October 2016, setting aside the injunction. The Supreme Court passed a status quo order on 27 January 2017. On 30 January 2020, the Court recorded an arrangement for the wife to find rented premises with rent paid by the husband. On 6 March 2020, the Court directed the Family Court Registrar to engage an architect to find suitable accommodation.

Whether the wife is entitled to vacate the status quo order and be permitted to reside in the matrimonial home. Whether the wife is entitled to alternative relief of rent and maintenance for alternative accommodation.

The wife argued that she has a right to reside in the shared household under Section 2(s) of the DV Act, and the status quo order deprives her of that right. She also argued that the husband is earning hundreds of crores while she and her daughter survive on Rs. 12 lakhs per month, and that the husband is in an adulterous relationship. The husband opposed the applications, relying on the earlier arrangement of alternative accommodation with rent paid by him.

In a matrimonial dispute where the wife has been deprived of residing in the matrimonial home due to a status quo order, the court may direct the husband to provide alternative accommodation and pay rent, rather than vacating the status quo order, especially when the litigation is long-drawn and mediation has failed. The wife's right to reside in the shared household under the DV Act must be balanced with the need for peaceful co-existence, and alternative accommodation with rent paid by the husband is a just and proper interim measure.

These two interlocutory applications filed by the respondentwife are part of series of a long drawn acrimonious litigation between the husband and wife. Suffice it to say that the appellanthusband and the respondentwife were married to each other on 27 th November 2004. The Family Court vide order dated 22 nd April 2016, allowed the said application, thereby granting an injunction restraining the respondentwife from entering the said house. Vide order dated 24 th October 2016, the High Court allowed the said writ petition filed by the respondentwife. This Court, therefore, enlarged the scope of the notice issued by this Court vide the said order and expressed that they were inclined to examine the impugned order of the High Court of Bombay on merits. Vide the said order, this Court also passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. Shri Sriram Panchu, the learned Mediator submitted his report on 19 th February 2019, stating therein that the differences between the parties were too wide and it was not possible to resolve the matter at that stage. On 30 th January 2020, this Court passed the following order: ... Again, when the matter was listed before this Court on 6 th March 2020, this Court passed the following order: ... Pursuant to the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, Smt. Kishori Joshi, Architect, Valuers and Engineers was engaged by the Registrar of the Family Court. The prayers in I.A. No. 60354 of 2021, read thus: ... The prayers in I.A. No. 59776 of 2021, read thus: ... We have heard Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicantrespondent wife and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the nonapplicantappellant husband. Shri Divan submitted that though the respondentwife has succeeded before the High Court, on account of the status quo order passed by this Court, the respondentwife is deprived of staying in the said house, which is the shared household as contemplated under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Shri Divan further submitted that this Court had directed an architect to be appointed by the Family Court to find out a house similar to the one, wherein she was residing with her husband. Shri Divan therefore submitted that taking into consideration the conduct of the appellanthusband, the order of status quo granted by this Court needed to be vacated.

The husband filed a divorce petition in October 2015 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The husband obtained an injunction on 22 April 2016 restraining the wife from entering the matrimonial home. The wife challenged this in the Bombay High Court, which allowed her writ petition on 24 October 2016. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court, which passed a status quo order on 27 January 2017. Multiple mediation attempts failed. On 30 January 2020, the Court recorded an arrangement for the wife to find rented premises with rent paid by the husband. On 6 March 2020, the Court directed the Family Court Registrar to engage an architect to find suitable accommodation. The architect submitted a list of 17 properties on 3 February 2021, but the wife found none suitable. The wife then filed the present interlocutory applications.

• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 2(s), 19, 20
• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 13
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2