IMPORTANT POINT
As regards Section 17(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the wife is only entitled to claim a right of residence, in a shared household and a ‘shared household’ would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The property belonging to her parents in laws cannot be called a shared household.

Headnote:(i) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2(s), 17(1). 19 - Shared household - Wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household - A shared household would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member - Property of mother of husband cannot be called a ‘shared household - Definition of ‘shared household’ in Section 2(s) of the Act not very happily worded - Court has to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society.
       Held : Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batra stated that the definition of shared household includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship. He contended that since admittedly the respondent had lived in the property in question in the past, hence the said property is her shared household. We cannot agree with this submission.(Para 24)
       If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband’s father, husband’s paternal grand parents, his material parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, all these houses of the husband’s relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist in living in the all these houses of her husband’s relatives merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past. Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd. It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted.(Paras 25, 26)
       As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a shared household’ would only mean the house belonging to or taken or rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken or rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband Amit Batra is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant No. 2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a ‘shared household’. (Para 28)
       No doubt, the definition of ‘shared household’ in Section 2(s) of the Act is not only happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society.(Para 29)
       (ii) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2(s), 17(1), 19 - Shared household - Respondent was married to son of appellants - After the marriage, husband and wife started living in the house of appellant 2, mother of husband, in the second floor - Divorce proceedings - Wife shifted to her parent]s residence - She filed criminal prosecution u/Ss 406/498A/506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and got her father in law, mother in law, her husband and married sister in law arrested by the police - They were granted bail only after three days - Wife filed suit for a mandatory injunction to enable her to enter the house belonging to her mother-in-law - Husband had shifted to his own flat - Whether wife has any right to the properties other than of her husband - (No) - High Court was not justified in holding that respondent was entitled to continue to reside in second floor of house of her mother-law - House in question cannot be said to be a ‘shared household’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) and 17(1) of the Act.(Paras 21, 28, 30)
       (iii) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 19(1)(f) - Wife’s claim for alternative accommodation - It can only be made against the husband and not against the in-laws or other relatives.(Para 27)

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J. - Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 17.1.2005 in C.M.M. No. 1367 of 2004 and C.M.M. No. 1420 of 2004.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The facts of the case are that respondent Smt. Taruna Batra was married to Amit Batra, son of the appellants, on 14.4.2000.

4. After the marriage respondent Taruna Batra started living with her husband Amit Batra in the house of the appellant no. 2 in the second floor. It is not disputed that the said house which is at B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi belongs to the appellant no. 2 and not to her son Amit Batra.

5. Amit Batra filed a divorce petition against his wife Taruna Batra, and it is alleged that as a counter blast to the divorce petition Smt. Taruna Batra filed an F.I.R. under Sections 406/498/506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and got her father-in-law, mother-in-law, her husband and married sister-in-law arrested by the police and they were granted bail only after three days.

6. It is admitted that Smt. Taruna Batra had shifted to her parent’s residence because of the dispute with her husband. She alleged that later on when she tried to enter the house of the appellant no. 2 which is at property No. B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi she found the main entrance locked and hence she filed Suit No. 87/2003 for a mandatory injunction to enable her to enter the house. The case of the appellants was that before any order could be passed by the trial Judge on the suit filed by their daughter-in-law, Smt. Taruna Batra, along with her parents forcibly broke open the locks of the house at Ashok Vihar belonging to appellant No. 2, the mother-in-law of Smt. Taruna Batra. The appellants alleged that they have been terrorized by their daughter-in-law and for some time they had to stay in their office.

7. It is stated by the appellants that their son Amit Batra, husband of the respondent, had shifted to his own flat at Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad before the above litigation between the parties had started.

8. The learned trial Judge decided both the applications for temporary injunction filed in suit no. 87/2003 by the parties by his order on 4.3.2003. He held that the petitioner was in possession of the second floor of the property and he granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the possession of Smt. Taruna Batra, respondent herein.

9. Against the aforesaid order the appellants filed an appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi who by his order dated 17.9.2004 held that Smt. Taruna Batra was not residing in the second floor of the parties in question. He also held that her husband Amit Batra was not living in the suit property and the matrimonial home could not be said to be a place where only wife was residing. He also held that Smt. Taruna Batra had no right to the property other than that of her husband. Hence, he allowed the appeal and dismissed the temporary injunction application.

10. Aggrieved, Smt. Taruna Batra filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution which was disposed of by the impugned judgment. Hence, these appeals.

11. The learned Single Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment held that the second floor of the property in question was the matrimonial home of Smt. Taruna Batra. He further held that even if her husband Amit Batra had shifted to Ghaziabad that would not make Ghaziabad the matrimonial home of Smt. Taruna Batra. The Learned Judge was of the view that mere change of the residence by the husband would not shift the matrimonial home from Ashok Vihar, particularly when the husband had filed a divorce petition against his wife. On this reasoning, the learned Judge of the High Court held that Smt. Taruna Batra was entitled to continue to reside in the second floor of B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi at that is her matrimonial home.

12. With respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1314

Cases Referred (1)