Without residing in a shared household, the cunning ‘knife’ tried to grab Residence order. But Hon’ble Supreme Court caught hold of the fraud attempts and nullified them.
From Paras 17 and 18,
Manmohan Attavar Vs Neelam Manmohan Attavar on 14 July, 2017
17. The facts of the present case are that the respondent has never stayed with the appellant in the premises in which she has been directed to be inducted. This is an admitted position even in answer to a court query by the respondent during the course of hearing. The “domestic relationship” as defined under Section 2(f) of the DV Act refers to two persons who have lived together in a “shared household”. A “shared household” has been defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act. In order for the respondent to succeed, it was necessary that the two parties had lived in a domestic relationship in the household. However, the parties have never lived together in the property in question. It is not as if the respondent has been subsequently excluded from the enjoyment of the property or thrown out by the appellant in an alleged relationship which goes back 20 years. They fell apart even as per the respondent more than 7 years ago. We may also note that till 22-2-2010 even the wife of the appellant was alive. We may note for the purpose of record that as per the appellant, he is a Christian and thus there could be no question of visiting any temple and marrying the respondent by applying “kum kum”, and that too when the wife of the appellant was alive.
18. We are thus unequivocally of the view that the nature of the ex parte order passed on 19-9-2016 permitting the respondent to occupy the premises of the appellant cannot be sustained and has to be set aside and consequently Civil Appeal No. 2500 of 2017 is liable to be allowed.
Citation: [(2017) 8 SCC 550]
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30306259/
The index page is here.