Back
K.T.SANKARAN, BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
A. R. Hashir – Appellant
Versus
Shima – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment holds that a residence order cannot be granted in respect of a house owned by the mother-in-law, based on S.R. Batra's case and the definition of "shared household" (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It reiterates that the definition of "shared household" does not include houses belonging to mother-in-law or father-in-law; such properties cannot be treated as "shared households" for purposes of protection/residence orders (!) (!) (!) . - The court emphasizes adherence to the interpretation given by higher courts (S.R. Batra’s case) and rejects broader expansions of "shared household" beyond the statutory wording (!) (!) . - The decision sets aside the original residence order and dismisses the appeal as infructuous, with the Sessions Court’s stay and interim orders addressed accordingly (!) (!) . - It discusses the maintainability and scope of remedies under Sections 18-22 and the availability of Section 29 appeals, noting the interplay between interim orders and final judgments (!) (!) . - The judgment cites that Parliament defines "shared household" and that courts should not amend the statute to encompass in-law owned houses unless the legislature changes the text (!) (!) . - It references the hierarchical necessity of following Supreme Court decisions (Art.141) and the binding nature of higher court rulings on lower courts (!) . - The accompanying concurring judge clarifies that expanding the scope of "shared household" to include in-law houses would infringe Article 300A (right to property) and would not be a progressive expansion (!) . - The facts involve a dispute where a wife sought a residence order in a house owned by the mother-in-law, but such relief was not permissible under the cited authorities (!) (!) (!) .
K.T. Sankaran, J.
The question involved in this Writ Appeal is whether a residence order under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Domestic Violence Act') can be granted in respect of a house owned by the mother-in-law of the applicant.
2. In S.R. Batra and another v. Taruna Batra ((2007) 3 SCC 169), the Supreme Court held thus:
"29. 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 on 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 on 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"."
3. In S.R. Batra's case, the Supreme Court considered the contention put forward by the wife that the definition of 'shared household' includes a household where the person aggri
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
