Entering own house is not trespass: Karnataka HC stays 9th case filed by wife against husband

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday stayed a criminal trespass case filed by a woman against her estranged husband, finding that it appeared to be a case where the accused man had entered his own home.

The wife had accused him of illegally entering a house by occupied by her. The Court, however, noted that the house appeared to be residence registered in both their names.

Justice M Nagaprasanna opined that it cannot be a case of criminal trespass if the husband had entered his own home. The Court, therefore, stayed further investigation in the case until a final decision on the accused husband's plea to quash the case.

"The house in which the petitioner and wife are staying is stated to be in the name of the husband, or in their joint names, or otherwise. Therefore, the husband has every right to enter the house. It cannot become criminal trespass by the husband entering into his own house. In that light, there shall be an interim order staying all further investigation till disposal of the petition," the Court said.

The Court also noted that the trespass case was the ninth case filed by the wife against her husband.

"The petitioner is the husband and respondent No.2 is the wife. It transpires that the husband came back from the United Kingdom after a long gap. By then, or simultaneously, about eight crimes are registered against the husband by the wife, invoking every known provision of law under every statute. This is the ninth crime registered by the wife, which is now challenged on the score that the husband has trespassed into the house of the wife. Therefore, the offence under Section 447 of the IPC/Section 329(4) of the BNS is alleged," it recorded.

Appearing for the petitioner (husband), advocate MR Chinnaswamy Manohar yesterday submitted that the wife had filed ten criminal cases against the husband and was relying on the present trespass case to seek the cancellation of his bail in another criminal proceeding.

He argued that the petitioner had purchased the three-bedroom apartment for about ₹3 crore and had only entered the premises to collect his personal belongings.

The petitioner had been unable to attend to his work because he was required to appear before different courts almost every day in connection with the various proceedings initiated against him, his counsel added.

He urged the Court to quash the FIR, contending that it was a case where the legal process was abused.

The advocate also argued that while the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act provides remedies to women, there is no equivalent statutory protection enabling a husband to seek access to his matrimonial home. He added that husbands, too, need protection against domestic violence.

"We will direct the legislature to enact a law for protection of men from domestic violence by women. The day has come," Justice Nagaprasanna responded, in a lighter vein.

On the other hand, the wife's counsel, Advocate Ankur Goel, submitted that he had earlier represented both parties during mutual divorce proceedings in 2021, but subsequently began representing only the wife after realising that the husband had allegedly cheated her.

He contended that the husband had been residing in the United Kingdom for nearly three years and had returned to the house carrying a pen camera or spy camera.

According to the wife, the husband's conduct justified the registration of the criminal case.