Back
2024 Supreme(Bom) 594
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Mr. Subhash Ramnath Pandey - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Revision Application No. 267 of 2022
Decided On : 28-03-2024
Ms. Poonam Ankleshwarai for the Applicant; Ms. T. F. Irani for respondent no. 2., Ms. Shilpa Gajare, APP for respondent no. 1.
IMPORTANT POINT
The definition of 'shared household' under the DV Act is inclusive, protecting the rights of women to reside in properties where they have lived in a domestic relationship, regardless of ownership or current possession.
Headnote:
PROTECTION OF WOMEN - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT - Sections 2(s), 17, 19, 23, 29 - The court discussed the definition of 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the DV Act, emphasizing that it includes any household where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship, regardless of ownership. The court interpreted Section 19(1)(a) as empowering the magistrate to issue residence orders to protect the aggrieved person's right to reside in the shared household. The court concluded that the Anand Ashram property constituted a shared household, thus allowing the respondent to seek residence orders despite the property being leased to a trust.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant challenged the Appellate Court's order modifying the trial Court's interim order under the DV Act, which restrained the applicant from disturbing the respondent's possession of the Anand Ashram property, claiming it was not a shared household as defined by the DV Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Anand Ashram property qualified as a shared household under the DV Act, as the parties had previously lived there together. The court upheld the Appellate Court's order, which granted the respondent certain rights to reside in the property.
Issues: Whether the Anand Ashram property constituted a shared household under the DV Act, and whether the Appellate Court's order was justified in granting residence rights to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The definition of 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the DV Act is broad and includes any household where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship. The court emphasized that the right to reside in a shared household cannot be denied based on temporary absence or the execution of a lease without the consent of the joint owner.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision application, affirming the Appellate Court's order that allowed the respondent to reside in specified parts of the Anand Ashram property.
JUDGMENT
Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with consent of the parties.
2. By this revision application, exception is taken to order of Appellate Court dated 22nd March, 2022 modifying Clause 4 of the order dated 22nd November 2021 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in an interim application filed under section 23 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act [for short, 'the DV Act'].
3. Clause 4 of the trial Court's order and the modified Clause 4 and 4A of the Appellate Court's order reads thus:
Clause (4) of the trial Court's order :
'Respondent is hereby ordered that he shall not disturbed the possession of the applicant in the property of Anand Ashram, Gram Gauriya, Deeh Pratapgarh Road, Mungra, Badshapur, Johnpur (U.P.)'
Clause (4) and Clause 4(a) of the Appellate Court's order :
'(4) Respondent Mr. Subhash Ramunath Pandey is hereby ordered that, till the final adjudication of the C. C. No. 152/DV/2020, he shall not disturb the residential right of the Applicant Mrs. Madhu Subhash Pandey in the property of Anand Ashram, Gram Gauriya Deeh, Pratapgarh Road, Mungra, Badshahpur, Johnpur (UP), in the main part of the bungalow i.e. two bedrooms on ground floor of said bungalow, adjacent to master bedroom and the kitchen, kitchen and pooja room for common use. Those are shown in the map of the Trust Deed in black writing and red sketch-pen marks made by Ld. Advocate for Respondent No. 2 which is kept at Exhibit X with the order and it be termed as a part of the order for convenience. He would also not restrict her to use two parkings and a servant quarter. He would not restrict her to use the hall for ingress and egress, except for sitting. He would not restrict her access to the generator room only for the purpose of electricity facility, in case she needed.'
'4(a) However, it is clarified that kitchen and pooja room would not be in her exclusive possession, but would be used in common. It is also clarified that this order would be operational, when she would be staying over there and in her absence, she would have the exclusive possession of one bedroom for keeping her articles, if she required. She will not have access to other constructions and landscape in said Anand Ashram.'
4. Although during the hearing voluminous documents are placed on record, none were referred to during the hearing and for our purpose, what is relevant is the application filed under the provisions of DV Act, interim application under section 23 of the DV Act, reply of applicant and the orders passed by trial Court and the appellate Court.
5. Facts required to be exposited are that CC No.152/DV/2020 was filed by respondent no.2 under section 12 of the DV Act seeking reliefs under sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the DV Act. An interim application came to be filed under section 23 of the DV Act interalia seeking ad interim order under Section 17(1) and (2) of DV Act in respect of Flat No.1503/1504, Bianca Tower, 15th Floor, Yari Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai (Bianca Tower) and for restraining order against the Applicant disturbing the possession of the respondent No. 2 from Bianca Tower and Anand Ashram, Gram Gauriya Deeh Pratapgraph Road, Mungra Badshahpur, Jaunpur, U.P. (Anand Ashram Property) under Section 19 (1) (a) of DV Act. The application came to be resisted by the Applicant.
6. The trial Court vide order dated 22nd November, 2021 partly allowed the interim application and restrained the applicant from dispossessing or in any manner disturbing the possession of respondent no.2 in the shared house being Bianca Tower and also restrained the applicant from disturbing the possession of respondent no.2-wife in the Anand Ashram Property. As against this an appeal was filed bearing Criminal Appeal No.181 of 2021 under section 29 of the DV Act which came to be partly allowed and Clause 4 of the trial Court's order came to be modified.
7. Heard Ms. Poonam Ankleshwaria, learned couns
