DELHI HIGH COURT
Rekha Palli, J.
Ambika Jain & Ors. —Appellants
Versus
Ram Prakash Sharma & Anr. —Respondents
RFA 222/2019; RFA 230/2019 & C.M. No.12833/2019 (for stay)
RFA 381/2019 & C.M. Nos.19599/2019 (for stay), 19601/2019 (for addl. doc.); RFA 598/2019 & C.M. No.29599/2019 (for stay); RFA 604/2019 & C.M. No.29735/2019 (for stay) and RFA 609/2019 & C.M. No.30047/2019
(for stay)
Decided on 18.12.2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) In incidents of domestic violence arising out of matrimonial disharmony, this right of residence is a special step towards ensuring that a helpless wife and her children are not abandoned without any shelter.
(2) Bar cannot be read into right of residence to a shared household granted to an aggrieved person, under DV Act, by restricting this right to only include those properties in which husband of aggrieved person has a share.
(3) Judicial admissions of an aggrieved person cannot be read in isolation in order to decree a suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, by ignoring his/her legal rights.
(4) DV Act is a confluence between civil and criminal laws.
(5) Rights of daughter-in-law and senior citizens have to balanced since both are two different vulnerable groups.

Headnote:

(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 17 – Right of daughter-in-law to reside in shared household – Legislature, by way of DV Act, intended to equip aggrieved persons with a mechanism to freely protect and defend themselves against violence inflicted in an intimate domestic setup, without fearing urgent retaliatory action from their perpetrators, who are persons that they identify as their family and loved ones – It provides for specific legal rights and protections, both permanent and interlocutory, to persons trapped in an endless cycle of familial violence in order to discontinue this process of harm endured by them – In incidents of domestic violence arising out of matrimonial disharmony, this right of residence is a special step towards ensuring that a helpless wife and her children are not abandoned without any shelter, by categorically protecting their right to reside in shared household, irrespective of whether aggrieved wife or her spouse, bears any title or interest in said household. (Para 28)

(B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 17 – Right of daughters-in-law to reside in shared household – Domestic violence proceedings initiated by daughters-in-law are presently pending adjudication – Claim for possession raised by in-laws, being title holders of suit premises, arose out of their desire to enjoy peaceful possession of their self-acquired property which is their constitutional right – On other hand, right of residence of a daughter-in-law is essentially a statutory right, temporary in nature, protecting their right to a roof over their head – Even as though suits for possession instituted by in-laws cannot be said to be not maintainable, phrase “procedure established by law” cannot be interpreted in such a narrow manner so as to permit a decree being passed only on the basis of title documents by ignoring statutory rights in favour of appellant – In disputes of such nature, where relationship between parties has witnessed a complete breakdown, is bruised by great animosity and where aspersions are being cast on conduct and character of opposite party by both sides, any opposition to claim for right of residence made by a daughter-in-law is not unforeseen or unexpected – DV Act has aspired to bring in a sea change in rights of persons affected by domestic violence by ensuring that irrespective of ownership of suit premises where aggrieved person resided, she would still retain right to reside therein as long as she was able to prove that she had endured domestic violence while being in a domestic relationship with owner of such premises. (Paras 30, 32 and 33)

(C) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 17 – Right of daughters-in-law to reside in shared household – Bar cannot be read into right of residence to a shared household granted to an aggrieved person, under DV Act, by restricting this right to only include those properties in which husband of aggrieved person has a share – Once mother-in-law or father-in-law or for that matter any other relative of husband, can be arrayed as a respondent in proceedings instituted under DV Act, all remedies under the Act would also be enforceable against them – This right being a vital statutory right, could not simply be brushed aside – Interpretation and procedure employed by trial Courts was not only incorrect and in violation of legislative intent, but also suffers from a complete misreading of DV Act and virtually amounts to depriving daughters-in-law of their statutory right. (Para 34)

(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XII Rule 6 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 17 – Judgment on admission – Provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC cannot be assigned a hypertechnical interpretation that just because there is an admission of title, suit must be decreed – In our country, commonly, title of properties which are inhabited by patrilocal families, may often stand in names of father-in-law or mother-in-law – In light of settled position of law that an admission ought to be read as a whole, claim of daughters-in-law for a statutory right accruing to them, which right serves purpose of ensuring that they are not rendered homeless, also needs to be taken into consideration – When determining validity and import of an admission made before it, Court must decide, after considering effect of entire body of pleadings and arguments made before it, whether admission conclusively lays dispute to rest – It was incumbent upon trial Court to assess effect of admissions made by daughters-in-law in the context of all pleadings on record including her claim of right of residence and sanctity thereof, her allegations regarding collusive nature of suit and bitter acrimony between parties – Another fundamental principle for a Court to keep in mind at the time of decreeing a suit on an admission, is whether party making admission can explain this admission during course of trial – In most cases trial Court has proceeded by reading only one some parts of written statement where daughter-in-law admitted to suit premises being in name of respondent without giving due regard to specific pleading made by her, in very same written statement, that irrespective of title documents being in exclusive name of in-laws, her husband and she had a right in suit premises – Judicial admissions of an aggrieved person cannot be read in isolation in order to decree a suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, by ignoring his/her legal rights – Even if daughter-in-law is unable to and does not seriously dispute title of her in-laws, decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC could not have been passed without even considering her rights under DV Act or by dismissively directing her to approach DV Court for protection of her rights under DV Act – Only in the event when pleadings in a suit do not provide sufficient details leading to raising of an issue, can Court reject claim of daughter-in-law or pass a decree on admission – Merely because rights accruing to an aggrieved person under DV Act is in nature of a special protection and not of a proprietary right, trial Court was not justified in passing a decree which, in effect, whittles away such protection. (Paras 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41)

(E) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order I Rule 10(2) and Order XII Rule 6 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 17 – Impleadment of necessary party in suit – Shortcoming in procedure followed by trial Court is non-impleadment of husbands in some of matters, prior to passing of a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 – As claim of daughter-in-law arises out of her relationship with her husband, stand of husband was certainly crucial to these suits for possession before trial Court – In cases where in-laws had not impleaded their sons, trial Court instead of impleading husbands by exercising their suo motu powers under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, proceeded to decree suit without taking stand of husband on record which was improper – In cases where husband has been impleaded as a party defendant, an additional serious infirmity noticed is trial Court proceeded to decree suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on an admission made by husband and not by daughter-in-law – Generally court, while exercising its powers under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, may rely on admissions by a co-defendant, but in cases like present where DV proceedings between parties are already pending, admissions made by husband could not at all be relied upon; when such bitter acrimony already exists between parties. (Paras 43 and 44)

(F) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 19 and 26 – Right of daughters-in-law to reside in shared household – Residence orders – DV Act is a confluence between civil and criminal laws – Section 26 in no way bars powers of a Court, seized by a civil proceeding affecting an aggrieved person and respondent under DV Act, to grant reliefs to aggrieved person under Sections 18 to 22 of DV Act in civil proceedings itself – Only way to strike balance between beneficiaries of DV Act and Senior Citizens Act, both of which are special statutes enacted to address problems of two different vulnerable groups, i.e., daughter-in-law and their children viz. aged in-laws, is by resorting to Section 26 of DV Act – Section 26(3) of DV Act specifically provides for such an eventuality and makes it incumbent on daughter-in-law to inform DV Court in case any relief is obtained by her under DV Act, in any proceeding other than proceedings before DV Court – Impugned judgments set aside and matters remanded back to trial Court for fresh adjudication – It will be incumbent upon Courts to consider facts of each case and examine whether a case is made out to mould reliefs under Section 19 of DV Act, before ordering appellants’ dispossession from suit premises. (Paras 48, 49, 50, 53 and 56)

Result: Appeals allowed.