Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Nikhil Majithia
For the Respondent: Ms. Abha R. Sharma

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The proceeding before the Judge, Small Causes Court is a legal proceeding within the civil jurisdiction, and the Court has the authority to entertain counter claims filed by defendants, including those seeking rights under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (!) (!) .

2. The counter claim filed by the appellant, seeking a right of residence under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is fully entertainable in a suit filed by the respondent before the Small Causes Court, as the reliefs sought are interconnected with the determination of rights in immovable property and are within the Court’s jurisdiction (!) (!) .

3. The relevant provisions of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, particularly Section 15 and the Second Schedule, generally restrict the Court’s jurisdiction over suits for the determination or enforcement of rights in immovable property. However, these restrictions are overridden by specific provisions, such as Section 26 of the Maharashtra Amendment, which allows such reliefs to be sought in proceedings affecting the rights of the parties, including counter claims (!) (!) (!) (!) .

4. The presence of a non obstante clause in Section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Act signifies that it overrides contrary provisions of the original Act, thereby permitting the Court to entertain claims related to rights of residence and interests in immovable property, even if these would typically fall outside its jurisdiction under the general provisions (!) .

5. The court emphasizes that unless a specific provision expressly bars consideration of such claims, the Court should interpret Section 26 of the Act, 2005, broadly to facilitate the effective protection of women’s rights, including rights to residence under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (!) (!) (!) .

6. The judgments below that refused to entertain the counter claim were in error, as they did not consider the overriding effect of Section 26 of the Act, 2005, and the applicable Maharashtra amendments, which clearly permit such claims before the Small Causes Court (!) (!) .

7. The Court clarified that the merits of the counter claim are yet to be decided and that the case should be remanded for proper consideration in accordance with law, recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction to entertain such claims (!) .

In summary, the legal position established is that counter claims seeking rights of residence under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are permissible and must be considered by the Small Causes Court, especially in light of specific statutory provisions that override general restrictions.