QUOTE(frndly1 @ Sep 3 2006, 10:58 AM)

What kind of court order? They are married and until the marriage is terminated, he has the same right as she to reside in the marital home (separate property or otherwise, if I am not mistaken, there isn't a court order, other than a divorce decree that will replace the need for a judge's or a trier of fact's decision as to property distribution and settlement.)
In the state of NJ, for example, a Domestic Violence TRO (temporary restraining order) will force the def. to find another place to reside, even if the def's name is on the lease, is married to the plaintiff, etc. That varies from state to state, but it make sense that if violence is occuring, the offending party would be forcibly removed from the house.
AND a TRO on a DV can be issued at the municipal level, without coming before a judge.
However, and this may be your confusion, a TRO or an FRO do not negate his/her right of equitable distribution in the property. The defendant in the DV case still has a right to challange, in court of course, that he has some right to the property of the marriage. However, just because a name is on a deed is no guarentee that a judge will find a 50/50 split of the marital asset.
For example, in this state, a judge may award sole ownership to the marital home if one party moves out and in with a paramour for a significant period of time, as that may be considered abandonment of the premises. Other factors, such as how much work each party did on the home, who *can prove* they paid for the home (if one party doesn't work, for example, they may not be entitled to a share of the property value, though conversely, I've seen in court wives who did not work receive 60% share of the marital home with the husband granted the right to buy out the non-working wife's share if she is not a tenant in the home.)
There are other factors as well in equitable distribution in a matrimonial case such as paramours/cohabitants, children, other assets acquired before and after the marriage, etc. Do not assume that just because your name is on a deed or title, or that an account is "joint", that you automatically are entitled to 50/50 shares. In fact, it is almost always better to settle matrimonial matters pre-trial because you are more likely to come away with what *you* perceive is your fair share.
Now, this varies from state to state, of course, so always check the State Court Rules for how your state conducts matrimonial affairs, but you'll find in many that the rules of civil litigation are different than matrimonial, which is why in some states matrimonial law is in "special civil" part.