Advocates:
['ADV GAURISH N AGNI', '', 'ADV SHUBHAM S MANERKER', 'ADV EESHAN USAPKAR', 'ADV TANMAI TULSHIDAS GAWAS', 'ADV RUCHIKA MISHRA', 'ADV ASHWIN D BHOBE', '', '', '', 'ADV THALI BALKRISHNA VISHWANATH', 'ADV FERNANDES ANNELISE']

Andreza

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 229 OF 2018

Reshmi R. Salgaonkar

…...Petitioner

V e r s u s

Prakash Rama Salgaonkar & 3 Ors.

…...Respondents

Mr. Gaurish Agni, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4.

Coram

:- NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

Date :

15

th March, 2021

ORAL ORDER

Heard respective Counsel for the parties.

2.

Criminal Case No. 17/DVA/2015/A, was initiated by the applicant

under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which came to be

dismissed vide impugned order passed by the learned JMFC, Mapusa, on

19

th July, 2016.

3.

An appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2016, against the aforesaid

order also came to be dismissed on 30.04.2018. The basis for dismissal of

the claim of the applicant was that the applicant-wife cannot claim right of

Andreza

-2-

residence in the property/house of In-laws. This state of view is expressed

rightly so at the relevant time by the Courts below in the impugned orders

based on the judgment in the matter of S. R. Batra and anr. vs. Taruna

Batra, reported in (2007) 3 SCC 169.

4.

The submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicant are that the

said view expressed by the Apex Court appears to be an incorrect view in the

light of judgment in the matter of Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja

reported in (2021) 1 SCC 414.

5.

My attention is invited to the findings recorded to that effect by the

Apex Court in paragraph 64, which reads thus:

"64. In paragraph 29 of the judgment, this Court in S.R.

Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) held that 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 definition of

shared household as noticed in Section 2(s) does not indicate

that a shared household shall be one which belongs to or taken

on rent by the husband. We have noticed the definition of

“respondent” under the Act. The respondent in a proceeding

Andreza

-3-

under Domestic Violence Act can be any relative of the

husband. In event, the shared household belongs to any relative

of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the

woman has lived, the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are

satisfied and the said house will become a shared household.

We are of the view that this court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna

Batra (supra) although noticed the definition of shared

household as given in Section 2(s) but did not advert to

different parts of the definition which makes it clear that for a

shared household there is no such requirement that the house

may be owned singly or jointly by the husband or taken on rent

by the husband. The observation of this Court in S.R. Batra Vs.

Taruna Batra (supra) that definition of shared household in

Section 2(s) is not very happily worded and it has to be

interpreted, which is sensible and does not lead to chaos in the

society also does not commend us. The definition of shared

household is clear and exhaustive definition as observed by us.

The object and purpose of the Act was to grant a right to

aggrieved person, a woman of residence in shared household.

The interpretation which is put by this Court in S.R. Batra Vs.

Taruna Batra (supra) if accepted shall clearly frustrate the object

and purpose of the Act. We, thus, are of the opinion that the

interpretation of definition of shared household as put by this

Andreza

-4-

Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) is not correct

interpretation and the said judgment does not lay down the

correct law."

6.

In the aforesaid background, the submissions are that the judgments

impugned are not sustainable thereby dismissing the DVA proceedings as

same are based on an incorrect view of law as was prevailing at the relevant

time.

7.

The learned Counsel for the respondents would urge that there are

certain subse