The Madras High Court has ruled that if the removal of a husband from his house ensures domestic peace, the courts must issue such orders, whether he has an alternative residence or not.
According to Justice RN Manjula, the courts should not be indifferent to women who fear the presence of their husbands in the house.
“If removal of the husband alone from the house is the only way to ensure domestic peace, then the courts should issue such orders, irrespective of whether the defendant has any other residence of his own or not. It's fine if he has an alternative accommodation, but if he doesn't, it's his responsibility to find it."
According to the judge, the orders issued for the protection of women in cases of domestic violence should be practical.
It was also said that safety orders are usually issued to ensure that the woman feels safe in her home area.
The court was hearing a plea by a wife challenging a district judge's order refusing to issue an order for her "abusive and unruly" husband to leave their shared home.
A lawyer by profession, the woman said that her husband's attitude towards her and her work was negative, and that he often abused her and created a tense atmosphere in the home.
The husband, on the other hand, believed that an ideal mother would only take care of the children and do household chores.
This argument was rejected by the Court, which held that if a husband does not allow his wife to be more than a housewife, her life becomes miserable.
The husband developed a hostile attitude towards his wife as a result of his lack of understanding and respect towards his professional commitments. Their intolerance appears to cause discord and problems in the lives of the parties "specified order".
It was also noted that the husband had leveled an allegation of prejudice against another judge of the High Court, who had passed the order in the case, which resulted in suo motu contempt proceedings being initiated against him.