Derivate right of residence permits a deserted wife to defend eviction, but that right ends on divorce absent preservation.

A deserted Hindu wife in occupation of tenanted matrimonial premises may be impleaded and defend eviction proceedings while the marriage subsists, because the right to maintenance includes a right of residence and she is not a stranger to the tenancy dispute. Her defence is only derivative and cannot exceed the tenant-husband's own defence, especially where he abandons the contest or acts prejudicially. Once divorce intervenes, the marital status ends and any continuing right of residence must be shown from the divorce decree or a maintenance arrangement. As no such continuing right was established, the wife could not continue the defence after dissolution of marriage.

---

---

Issues: Whether a deserted wife in occupation of the matrimonial home, which is tenanted premises taken by her husband, can be impleaded and contest eviction proceedings against the tenant-husband; and whether such right survives after the marriage is dissolved by divorce.

Analysis: The right of a Hindu wife to maintenance includes a right of residence, and so long as the marriage subsists a deserted wife residing with the tenant in the matrimonial home is not a stranger to the tenancy dispute. Where the tenant-husband abandons the contest or acts to the prejudice of the wife, she may defend the eviction proceedings, but only to the same extent as the tenant could have defended them and not on a larger footing. The Court applied the principle that the wife's occupation of the matrimonial home is protected as part of maintenance, and that the tenant's family members may defend to protect the common residential interest. However, once divorce intervenes, the status of wife ends and any right of residence must flow from the divorce decree or maintenance arrangement. In the present case, the appellant did not establish any continuing right of residence after dissolution of marriage, and the terms of the divorce settlement were not shown.

Conclusion: The appellant was rightly allowed to be impleaded and contest while the marriage subsisted, but after the divorce she had no independent right to continue the defence in the eviction matter. The challenge to eviction therefore failed.

Final Conclusion: A deserted wife may defend eviction proceedings in protection of the matrimonial home so long as the marriage and her right of residence subsist, but that right does not continue after divorce unless preserved by the decree or maintenance arrangement.

Ratio Decidendi: A deserted wife in occupation of tenanted matrimonial premises has a derivative right to contest eviction only to the extent of the tenant-husband's own defence, and that right comes to an end when the marriage is dissolved unless a continuing right of residence is established under the divorce or maintenance order.

---