AIR 2009 (NOC) 544 (BOM.) = 2008 (6) AIR BOM R 610 ::2008 (6) AIR Bom R 610 ::2009 (2) AKAR (NOC) 329 (BOM.) ::2009 A I H C 987

Bombay High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): D. B. Bhosale , J

(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S. 6 — Forcible dispossession from property — Plaintiff along with her husband living in suit premises by virtue of service occupancy agreement between her husband and a Company of which he was employee — Termination of service occupancy agreement — Plaintiff cannot claim any right of possession to suit premises — Company cannot be held to have forcibly dispossessed her from suit premises — Provisions of Domestic Violence Act also cannot be invoked Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (43 of 2005), S 3(d)(iv) Words and phrases — ‘Matrimonial home’ — Meaning of {" Where the plaintiff and her husband were in possession of suit premises by virtue of firstly leave and licence agreement and subsequently by virtue of service occupancy agreement by her husband with defendant Company as its employee, on termination of service occupancy agreement against plaintiff’s husband by Company, the plaintiff cannot claim any right of possession of suit premises or that she was dispossessed by her husband who had started living separately or by the Company. In such a case, the plaintiff cannot contend that suit premises was her matrimonial home from where she could not be dispossessed. Matrimonial home means a home where both spouses have an equal right to possession, regardless of the ownership. That is, one spouse may legally own the home, but, nevertheless, both spouses will be equal....