SAMIR VIDYASAGAR BHARDWAJ versus NANDITA SAMIR BHARDWAJ

Citation: [2017] 4 S.C.R. 89 · Decided: 09-05-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 4 S.C.R. 89 
SAMIR VIDYASAGAR BHARDWAJ 
v. 
NANDITA SAMIR BHARDWAJ 
(CivilAppeal No. 6450 of 2017) 
MAY09,2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATIII, JJ.] 
Protection of Wo111en from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 
s. 19(1)(b) - Application under - By wif? - Praying for 
issuance of mandatory injunction against the husband to move out 
of the matrimonial house and handing over vacant and peaceful 
possession of the house - Divorce petition by wife on the ground of 
cruelty pending - Family Court by interim order directed the 
husband to move out 'of the matrimonial house and not to visit the. 
same till the decision ofthe divorce petition - High Court affirmed 
the order of family court - On appeal, held: s. 19(l){b) provides 
that the Magistrate on being satisfied Iha( domestic violence has 
.taken place, can remove the spouse from shared household- The 
Family Court arrived at a findii1g that prima facie 111aferial was 
available to acc.ept the allegation of wife and· then. exercised his .. 
discretion u/s. 19(1)(/J) - Exercise of such discretion cannot be said 
to be perverse. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court - · 
HELD: 1. Section 19(l)(b) of the Protection of Women 
from Domestic Violence Act provides that the Court may direct 
the appellant-husband to remove himself from the shared 
I,ousehold. The order passed under Section 19 of the Act seeks 
to maintain continued and undisturbed residence of the aggrieved 
party within the shared household and in pursuance of same, it 
directs the respondent to execute a bond with or without surety 
or secure an alternate accommodation for the aggrieved party 
~nd pay the rent for the same and restrains the respondent from 
or renouncing property rights or val.uable security of tbe 
aggrieved party. [Para 11] [92-G-II] 
2. The Family Court arrived at a finding that prii1w facie · · 
material was available on record to accept the allegation of the 
89 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
.. , 
90 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COT!fRT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
respondent-wife on domestic violence wherein the concerned 
Judge had exercised his discretion under Section 19(1)(b) of the 
Act which Jlrovides that the Magistrate on being satisfied that 
domestic violence has taken place can remove the spouse from 
the shared household which he bas rightly done. Exercise of 
discretion by Family Court cannot be said to be perverse 
warranting interference. The High Court while declining to 
interfere with the order has also considered the factual and legal 
position. [Para 12) [93-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6450 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.01.2017 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in W. P. (C) No. 169 of2017. 
. 
. 
M. L. Vanna, Sr.Adv, Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Adv. for the Appellant. 
Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv, Udit Gupta (For Ravi Kumar Tomar), Adv. 
D 
for the Respondent. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
. R. BANUMA'fHI, J, 1. Leave granted. 
2. An order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ 
Petition(C) No. 169 of 2017 dated 11.01.2017 wherein the High Court 
affirmed the interim order passed by the Family Court in and by which 
the appellant-husband has been directed to remove himself from his 
own home and not to visit there until the divorce petition is finally decided 
is under challenge. 
3. This case presents a very unpleasant tale of a couple having 
daughters who are in their early twenties witnessing a bitter matrimonial 
battle between their parents. The appellant and the respondent herein 
tied nuptial knot on 05.05.1992. The couple resided in two flats being 
Flat No. 102 and Flat No. I 03 situated in the building known as "Hi 
Ville" 29'h Road, Bandra(West), Mumbai. The said two flats were sold 
by the couple and they purchased a flat bearing No. 20 I situated in 
"Aashna" Building, 8, St. Martin Road, Bandra (West) Mumbai by way 
of Agreement for Sale dated 22.11.20 I 0. The said flat was purchased in 
the joint names of the appellant and the respondent herein where they 
have been resid.ing with their two daughters till date. 
SAMIR VIDYASAGAR BHARDWAJ v. NANDITA SAMIR 
91 
BHARDWAJ [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
4. After more than two decades of marital life, on 09.07.2015 · A 
respondent-wife filed a petition under Section27(1)(d) of the Special 
Marriage Act for divorce against the appellant being Petition No. A-
1873 of2015 in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The respondent 
has sought various other reliefs including a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.