The court asked the industrialist husband to seek accommodation elsewhere.
If domestic peace is disturbed because of a husband, he should leave the house, the Madras High Court has said.
Justice RN Manjula, who made the observation recently, directed an industrialist to leave his advocate wife, and two children and seek accommodation elsewhere.
According to the wife, V Anusha, she had filed a petition before a Family Court in the city to dissolve her marriage, During the pendency of the proceedings, she filed a petition for direction to her husband to move out of her home in the interest and welfare of the children till the disposal of her petition for divorce.
A family court, partly allowing her plea, directed the husband not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the wife in the matrimonial home in any manner whatsoever, where his wife and children were living, till the disposal of the main petition. Aggrieved over this, the wife filed this revision petition.
Allowing the petition, Justice Manjula said that since the marriage between the petitioner and her husband did not go well, the family became a battlefield. While the wife stated that her husband is unruly and harsh, her husband claimed that he is a very supportive father and his wife, being an advocate, has dragged him to court.
Though it is not appropriate to deal with the merits of the allegations made by each other, some basic idea about the conduct of the parties is essential to decide the prayer sought in the petition, the judge said.
The husband stated that her wife did not prefer to stay at home, but often went outside. An ideal mother is a woman who always stays at home and does only household chores, he claimed.
The judge noted that the couple have two children aged about 10 and 6 years. The husband's abusive attitude will only disturb the children. It is not unusual for couples to live under the same roof despite their marriage losing its charm. They may even turn east and west but still try to manage to live in the same house. So long as their conduct does not hurt the family peace, but only their personal relationship, there is no harm in allowing the parties to live in the same house until a logical end is given to their marriage.
But it is a completely different scenario in this case. If one party unfurls an unruly and aggressive attitude and creates an unreasonably adverse situation, the wife and her children can not be compelled to live under constant fear and insecurity of the husband. For a family living under one roof, the conduct of one party to the other is always vital in defining the respect and recognition the family would get from others.
If domestic peace is disturbed due to an unruly act of one party, namely the husband, there need not be any hesitation in giving the practical enforcement for the protection order by removing the husband from the house, the judge said and gave the direction.