The Delhi High Court has stated that the right to dwell in a marital home, as per the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, encompasses the right to live in a secure and healthy atmosphere. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made this remark while issuing a notice in response to a wife’s plea that disputed the First Appellate Court’s decision in a matrimonial disagreement. He further explained that the concept of “right to safe and healthy living” is included within the scope of the right to residence in a matrimonial home. Consequently, the Court should intervene in such cases.
The wife filed a challenge against the decision made on February 7th, where her appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the First Appellate Court. In the interim application filed by the wife, the trial court found no evidence to support her allegations of harassment and torture by her husband and in-laws. The wife’s lawyer argued before the First Appellate Court that the trial court had failed to consider the violation of the wife’s fundamental rights, such as the right to life and right to health, by the husband and in-laws’ practice of feeding street dogs in their shared household.
The wife’s counsel contended that the trial court overlooked the potential health hazards and disturbance caused to the wife due to the presence of street dogs in the house. Justice Gedela, after examining the relevant part of the disputed order, concluded that the First Appellate Court should have taken into account the balance of interests between the parties, particularly their interpersonal relationship, in the initial stages. The Court directed the issuance of a notice, asking for a response to the wife’s petition within four weeks, with a further four weeks granted for a counter-reply, and scheduled the matter for the next hearing on May 22.
Source: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-high-court-right-to-residence-matrimonial-home-right-to-safe-and-healthy-living-225522
You May Also Like:
Wife’s 498A complaint costs advocate husband judge post 
Evidence of woman’s relatives in matrimonial dispute can’t be brushed aside terming them ‘interested witnesses’: Madras High Court High Court Rules That Endless Delay in Remarriage Violates Spousal Rights 
Appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act against an interim order issued by a magistrate allowed: Punjab & Haryana High Court