Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(HP) 352

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
Pooja Kapil - Appellant
Versus
Rishi Kapil & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 184 of 2020
Decided On : 20-07-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Advocate, Rohit Sharma, Advocate, K.D. Sood, Advocate, Surkit Sood, Advocate

A woman cannot claim a right of residence in the house owned by her father-in-law, as established by judicial precedents and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

Headnote:
Maintenance - Domestic Violence - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 23 - Judgment of the court relied on the interpretation of the Act and the legal right of residence in a shared household - The court upheld the maintenance of ?4000/- per month and the order directing respondent No. 1 to provide accommodation on rent to the petitioner - The judgment referenced the legal principle that a woman cannot claim a right of residence in the house owned by her father-in-law, as established by judicial precedents and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance and protection orders. The Family Court partly allowed the application, granting maintenance of ?4000/- per month, litigation expenses of ?10,000/-, and a protection order restraining the respondents from committing any act of domestic violence. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing for higher maintenance and a legal right to reside in the premises owned by her father-in-law.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the maintenance granted was reasonable based on the income of respondent No. 1 and upheld the order directing respondent No. 1 to provide accommodation on rent to the petitioner. The court dismissed the petition, citing the legal principle that a woman cannot claim a right of residence in the house owned by her father-in-law.
Issues: The issues included the adequacy of the maintenance granted and the petitioner's entitlement to residence in the premises owned by her father-in-law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the income of respondent No. 1 to determine the reasonable amount of maintenance and referenced judicial precedents and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to establish that the petitioner cannot claim a right of residence in the house owned by her father-in-law.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the interim order, if any, was vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, were also dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Family Court granted maintenance of ₹4,000 per month and litigation expenses ₹10,000, and directed respondent to provide accommodation on rent, with a protection order; petitioner challenged the amount and the right to residence (!) - Court affirmed that the maintenance amount was reasonable given respondent No. 1’s income (stated ₹12,000 per month; evidence considered) and upheld the rent-based accommodation directive (!) (!) - Court held a wife cannot claim a right of residence in a house owned by her father-in-law; shared household must be property belonging to husband or jointly owned; premises owned by respondent No. 2 (mother of husband) is not a shared household (!) (!) (!) - Court referenced and relied on precedents and Supreme Court law concluding the wife cannot claim residence in father-in-law’s house; directed continuation of rent-based accommodation rather than grant of right to reside in in-law’s house (!) (!) (!) - The petition was dismissed, interim orders vacated, and miscellaneous applications, if any, were dismissed (!) - Family Court’s order to provide one room with kitchen, bathroom, and toilet on rent was upheld; respondent willing to comply and has taken premises on rent (!)

How to determine maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in relation to income and appropriate amount?

What is the interpretation of "shared household" and the right to residence of a wife under Section 17(1) and 2(s) of the DV Act?

What are the consequences of the wife’s claim to reside in a house owned by her father-in-law and the court’s approach to alternative accommodation via rent?

JUDGMENT

Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 17.01.2020, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Himachal Pradesh in Cr.MA No. 568- IV of 2018, RBT No. 04 of 2020, in case titled, Pooja Kapil versus Rishi Kapil and others, may kindly be modified, thereby directing respondent No. 1 to pay maintenance @ Rs. 20,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.12.2018 i.e. the date of the application and further litigation expenses be awarded of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner and also directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to provide the entire accommodation in the ground floor which consists of two bed rooms, one drawing room, one kitchen, one wash room, one small store room and further respondents may kindly be restrained from entering the rooms of the petitioner in the ground floor without her permission and justice be done. The other directions passed by the learned Court for restraining the respondents from committing any act of domestic violence may kindly be upheld in the interest of justice.

Such other or further order as may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances may also be passed while allowing this petition and justice be done."

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner herein has preferred an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for grant of interim relief of maintenance/protection orders etc. In the application, copy of which stands appended with this petition as Annexure P-1, following reliefs have been prayed:-

"It is, therefore prayed that the following interim reliefs may kindly be granted to the applicant in the interest of justice:

a) The Respondent No. 1 be directed to pay maintenance to the applicant @ Rs. 20,000/- P.M. and Rupees 30,000/- as litigation expenses.

b) The Respondents be directed to unlock the rooms, kitchen and toilets of the ground floor of the house where the applicant was residing.

c) The respondents be directed by passing a protection order to not come in the rooms in which the applicant will live without permission or knocking the door.

d) Any other relief which the hon'ble Court deems fit be also awarded in the interest of justice by allowing the application."

3. This application has been disposed of by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, in the following terms:-

"In view of the above, the present application is partly allowed and maintenance of ?4000/- per month is granted to the applicant. She is also granted litigation expenses of ?10,000/- . In addition to this, the respondent No. 1 will provide one room with kitchen, bathroom and toilet for the residence of the applicant, the rent of which shall be provided by the respondent No. 1. Further, the protection order is issued in favour of the applicant for restraining the respondents from committing any act of domestic violence during the pendency of the petition. The observations made here-in-before shall remain confined to the disposal of the application and will have no bearings whatsoever on the merits of the case. It be tagged with main case file."

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

5. Mr. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by learned Family Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned Court has erred in not appreciating that the petitioner was entitled to maintenance at least at the rate of ?20,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application and she was also entitled to the accommodation in the premises where she was residing with her husband at Hamirpur. Learned Counsel has argued that the order passed by learned Family Court directing respondent No. 1 to provide one room with kit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document