Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K.T. SANKARAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
A.R. Hashir & Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
Shima & Ors. – Respondents
W.A. NO.555 OF 2015
Decided On : 10-03-2015
residence order - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act - Section 19 - [S.R. Batra's case, 2007 (3) SCC 169], Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the interpretation of 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, emphasizing that a residence belonging to the mother-in-law or father-in-law would not be a 'shared household' as per the Act. The court highlighted the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in S.R. Batra's case and emphasized that the judiciary should not deviate from the interpretation provided by the higher courts.]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over a residence order under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, regarding a house owned by the mother-in-law of the applicant. The husband and wife had differences, and the wife sought a residence order to live in the shared household, which was owned by the mother-in-law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the house owned by the mother-in-law did not qualify as a 'shared household' under the Domestic Violence Act. The court emphasized that the interpretation of 'shared household' as per the Act did not include the house belonging to the mother-in-law or father-in-law, based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in S.R. Batra's case. The court also noted that the judiciary should not deviate from the interpretation provided by the higher courts.
Issues: The key issues included the interpretation of 'shared household' under the Domestic Violence Act, the applicability of residence orders in houses owned by the mother-in-law, and the dispute over the wife's right to reside in the shared household.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of 'shared household' as per Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in S.R. Batra's case. The court emphasized that the judiciary should adhere to the interpretation provided by the higher courts and should not deviate from it.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and dismissed the Original Petition. The residence order was also set aside, and the appeal filed by the mother-in-law before the Sessions Court was dismissed as infructuous.
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 aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship, and held thus:
"24. 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.
25. We cannot agree with this submission.
26. 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 grandparents, his maternal 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 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."
4. The Supreme Court noticed in paragraph 30 of the judgment thus:
"30. No doubt, the definition of "shared household" in Section 2(s) of the Act is not very 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."
5. In the present case, the learned Single Judge took the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case the decision in S.R. Batra and another v. Taruna Batra ((2007) 3 SCC 169) can be distinguished. The learned Single Judge held that if a woman along with her husband had stayed in a particular house either belonging to her mother-in-law or father-in-law, after her marriage, and if the marriage was arranged by the parents and the bride was brought to the matrimonial home with the blessings of the parents of the husband, the parents of the husband cannot subsequently turn against the woman and take a stand that it was not her shared household. It was held that if the bride was brought to the house by the in-laws, and the bride and bridegroom stayed in that house, it would constitute "an implied authority and a right to the girl to reside in that house by treating it as the shared household". A distinction was made by the learned Single Judge where the bride was brought to the house of the parents of the husband without the junction of his parents, and held that in such cases the bride cannot put forward a claim that it was a shared household. A distinction was drawn by the learned
AI
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
