Daughter in law has right to stay in a suit property or not to be decided on basis of evidence

Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja (Supreme Court)

Conclusion: Suit filed in civil court for mandatory and permanent injunction was fully maintainable and the issues raised by assessee-father-in-law as well as by daughter-in-law claiming a right under Section 19 were to be addressed and decided on the basis of evidence, which was led by the parties in the suit. High Court had rightly set aside the decree of the Trial Court and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

Held: The suit property was purchased by assesssee-father-in-law in the year 1983 in his name. The daughter-in-law got married to son of assessee and after marriage she was living in first floor of suit property. Till July, 2004, the son of assessee also lived in first floor whereafter due to marital discord, he shifted in the guest room on the ground floor. In the suit filed by assessee for mandatory and permanent injunction, he pleaded that he was the sole owner of the house and prayed for removal of his daughter-in-law from the first floor of the house. The daughter-in-law had filed a written statement in the suit and claimed that the suit property was a shared household where daughter-in-law had right to reside. Assessee contended that the premises was not a shared household since the husband of assessee neither had any share in the suit premises nor suit premises was a joint family property. It was held that Delhi High Court had refrained from deciding the point as to whether suit property was a shared household on the ground that the application filed under Section 12 of Act, 2005 by daughter-in-law was pending. In the suit filed by assessee where daughter-in-law had pleaded and claimed that it was shared household and she had right to live and it was on that ground she was resisting the suit for mandatory injunction, the question that whether the suit property was a shared household or not becomes relevant and necessary and the said issue could not be skipped on the ground that application under D.V. Act was pending. From the definition under section 2(s) of D.V. Act, 2005, it was clear that it was not requirement of law that aggrieved person may either own the premises jointly or singly or by tenanting it jointly or singly; (ii) the household may belong to a joint family of which the respondent was a member irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person had any right, title or interest in the shared household; and (iii) the shared household may either be owned or tenanted by the respondent singly or jointly. Therefore, on conjoint reading of Sections 12(2), 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 28 of the D.V. Act, it could safely be said that the proceedings under the D.V. Act and proceedings before a civil court, family court or a criminal court, as mentioned in Section 26 of the D.V. Act were independent proceedings, like the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. for maintenance before the Magistrate and/or family court and the proceedings for maintenance before a civil court/ family court for the reliefs under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. However, as observed here in above, the findings/orders passed by the one forum had to be considered by another forum. The order dated 26.11.2016 which was passed by the Magistrate under D.V. Act, 2005, shall be relevant evidence and fully admissible in the civil suit, but the above order shall only be one of the evidence in the suit but shall neither preclude the civil court to determine the issues raised in the suit or to grant the relief claimed by the plaintiff Dr. Prem Kant Ahuja. The Civil Court in such suit could consider the issues and may grant relief if the plaintiff was able to prove her case. The order passed under D.V. Act whether interim or final shall be relevant and have to be given weight as one of evidence in the civil suit but the evidentiary value of such evidence was limited. The findings arrived therein by the magistrate were although not binding on the Civil Court but the order having passed under the Act, 2005, which was an special Act had to be given its due weight. The pendency of proceedings under Act, 2005 or any order interim or final passed under D.V. Act under Section 19 regarding right of residence was not an embargo for initiating or continuing any civil proceedings, which relate to the subject matter of order in­terim or final passed in proceedings under D.V. Act, 2005. The judgment or order of criminal court granting an interim or final relief under Section 19 of D.V. Act, 2005 were relevant within the meaning of Section 43 of the Evi­dence Act and could be referred to and looked into by the civil court. A civil court was to determine the issues in civil proceedings on the basis of evidence, which had been led by the parties before the civil court. In the facts of the present case, suit filed in civil court for mandatory and permanent injunction was fully maintainable and the issues raised by assessee as well as by the defendant claiming a right under Section 19 were to be addressed and decided on the basis of evidence, which was led by the parties in the suit. High Court had rightly set aside the decree of the Trial Court and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT

Leave granted.

2. This appeal raises important questions of law pertaining to the interpretation and working of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2005”).

3. This appeal has been filed by Satish Chander Ahuja, the plaintiff questioning the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 18.12.2019 in RFA No.381/2019 by which judgment Delhi High Court has set aside the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff dated 08.04.2019 under Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for mandatory and permanent injunction. The High Court after setting aside the decree of the Trial Court has remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with the directions given by the High Court. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has come up in this appeal.

4. We may notice the brief facts of the case and relevant pleadings of the parties for determining the questions which have arisen for consideration in this appeal.

5. The appellant by deed dated 12.01.1983 purchased property bearing No.D-1077, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. The son of the appellant, Raveen Ahuja was married to the respondent, Sneha Ahuja on 04.03.1995. After marriage the respondent started living in the first floor of the house No.D-1077, Friends Colony, New Delhi along with her husband. There being marital discord between Raveen and Sneha, in July, 2014, Raveen moved out of the first floor and started staying in the guest room of the ground floor. In the year 2004 a separate kitchen was started by the respondent in the first floor of the house. Raveen, the husband of the respondent filed a Divorce Petition on 28.11.2014 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty against the respondent, Sneha Ahuja which proceeding is said to be still pending. The respondent, Sneha Ahuja, on 20.11.2015, i.e., after filing of the Divorce Petition, filed an application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 impleading Raveen Ahuja as respondent No.1, Shri Satish Ahuja, respondent No.2 and Dr. Prem Kanta Ahuja(mother-in-law of the respondent), respondent No.3. In the complaint it was alleged that Sneha Ahuja has been subjected to severe emotional and mental abuse by the respondents. In the application respondent prayed for several orders under Act, 2005. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed passed an interim order on 26.11.2016 to the following effect:

“The respondents shall not alienate the alleged shared household nor would they dispossess the complainant or their children from the same without Orders of a Competent Court. These directions shall continue till next date.”

6. The appellant filed a Suit No.792/2017 impleading the respondent as sole-defendant for mandatory and permanent injunction and also for recovery of damages/mesne profit. Plaintiff’s case in the suit was that he is a senior citizen of 76 years old, the defendant is in occupation of two bed rooms with attached dressing and bath rooms and a kitchen on the first floor of the property bearing No. D-1077, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Plaintiff pleaded that he is a heart patient and has undergone angioplasty twice and suffers from hypertension and high blood pressure. Plaintiff pleads that the defendant has filed false and frivolous cases against the plaintiff and his wife and hence he prays for removal of the defendant from the suit property so as he may live peaceful life. Plaintiff further pleaded that the plaintiff acquired the house from the previous owner, namely, Kulbhushan Jain on 12.01.1983. He also pleaded that the property has been converted into free hold vide conveyance deed executed in his favour dated 14.07.2003 which is registered. Plaintiff pleaded that his elder son was married with the defendant on 04.03.1995. The plaintiff further pleaded that wife of the plaintiff has been subjected to various threats and violence in the hands of the defendant on several occasions. The mention of the Divorce Petition filed by Raveen was made in the plaint and it was pleaded that the defendant as a counter blast has filed the complaint case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in which interim order directing the plaintiff not to alienate and not to dispossess the defendant without order of the competent court has been passed.

7. Plaintiff claimed that he and his wife has become victim of domestic violence on the part of the defendant. Plaintiff pleaded that the status of occupation of defendant as a daughter-in-law during subsistence of marriage with the son could be said to be permissive in nature and defendant is not entitled to claim a right of residence against the plaintiff, i.e., her father-in-law who has no obligation to maintain her during the lifetime of her husband. Plaintiff in the suit prayed for decree for mandatory injunction against the defendant to remove herself and her belonging from the first floor of the property and a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendants, her agents, employees, representatives, etc. from in any manner creating interference or obstruction of the right of the plaintiff in the suit property and restrain her from causing interference in the peaceful occupation of the plaintiff in the ground floor of the property. Decree of recovery of damages/mesne profit was also asked for the use and occupation of the suit property of Rs.1 lac from the date of filing of the suit till the defendant is removed from the suit property.

8. A written statement was filed by the defendant pleading that house property was acquired by the plaintiff through joint family funds and not his self-acquired property. It was pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff has suppressed the true and material facts regarding causing physical and mental torture to the defendant on account of domestic violence etc. by the plaintiff, his wife and their elder son.

9. The defendant also referred to filing of complaint case under section 12 of Act, 2005. The defendant claimed that the suit property is a shared household as per provision of Section 2(s) of the Act, 2005, the defendant has right to stay/reside in the shared household. The plaintiff has filed suit in the collusion of his son Raveen Ahuja to deprive the legal right of the residence of the defendant and her daughters in the suit property. It was pleaded further that the defendant has been subjected to severe emotional and mental abuse by the plaintiff, his wife and their elder son. The defendant further pleads that since marriage defendant is staying in the shared household of the first floor which is a matrimonial home of the defendant. The interim order passed in complaint case dated 16.07.2016 and 26.11.2016 has been also referred to.

10. Plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on 05.01.2018 read with Section 151 CPC for passing a decree on the basis of admissions made by the defendant in the application under Section 12 of Act, Plaintiff pleaded that property in question is self-acquired property of the plaintiff by agreement to sell dated 12.01.1983 followed by a registered conveyance deed dated 14.07.2003. The defendant has herself in her pleadings filed in the domestic violence case admitted the plaintiff to be the owner of the suit property, hence, decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff be granted.

11. The defendant filed an application on 23.09.2017 under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC for production of documents. In paragraph 7 of the application, the defendant referred to various documents which according to the defendant were relevant for deciding the suit. By the application documents were sought to be produced by the plaintiff. The Trial Court vide its order dated 20.03.2018 directed the plaintiff to file an affidavit and documents as sought for in the application under Order XI Rule 13 which are in his custody with advance copy to the opposite party. A reply was filed by the defendant on 15.02.2018 to the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The defendant again reiterated that the shared household was acquired by the plaintiff through joint-family business and the house is not his self-acquired property.

12. The plaintiff also filed an affidavit and documents under Order XI Rule 13 CPC in compliance of the order of the Trial Court dated 20.03.2018.

13. The Trial Court proceeded to decide the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC filed by the plaintiff. By judgment dated 08.04.2019 Trial Court decreed the suit in the following manner:

“26. In the light of aforesaid discussion and the observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are sufficient admission to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction as prayed for. The defendant is directed to hand over the vacant and physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within 15 days. At the time of announcement of the order, this Court asked plaintiff whether he wants to pursue his suit for the relief of damages to which he agreed to waive off the said relief. Accordingly, statement of the plaintiff was also recorded to this effect. Accordingly, the relief of damages stands withdrawn. Decree sheet be prepared for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction accordingly. There is no order as to costs. File be consigned to record room. As requested, copy of this judgment be given dasti.”

14. Aggrieved with the judgment of Trial Court the defendant filed RFA No.381 of 2019 in the High Court of Delhi. The Delhi High Court heard the RFA filed by the respondent along with five other RFAs and by a common judgment dated 18.12.2019 set aside the decree of the Trial Court and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with the directions given in paragraph 56 of the judgment.

15. The High Court noticed the facts of the different appeals and submissions made by the learned counsel. The High Court opined that the real point of determination in the appeal is not as to whether suit premises is a shared household or not and since the domestic violence proceedings initiated by the daughter-in-law are pending adjudication, determination of this issue in suit proceedings would result in causing serious prejudice to the claim of the applicant in the domestic violence proceedings. The High Court observed that it had consciously refrained from determining the question as to whether the suit premises is shared household or not. The High Court was of the view that the decisions cited have not considered the effect of the pending domestic violence application instituted by daughter-in-law upon the civil suit. The High Court, however, held that suit for possession instituted cannot be said to be non-maintainable since necessary answer falls within the term “procedure established by law”. The High Court has further observed that question is whether the suit could be simply decreed by the Trial Court on the basis of the title without weighing the effect of the statutory right in favour of the appellant. The High Court in paragraph 33 made following observation:

“33…….Thus, I find that the DV Act has aspired to bring in a sea change in the rights of persons affected by domestic violence by ensuring that irrespective of the ownership of the suit premises where the aggrieved person resided, she would still retain the 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 the owner of such premises.”

16. The High Court opined that the Trial Court erroneously proceeded to pass decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC by not impleading the husband and failing to appreciate the specific submission of the appellant while admitting the title of the respondent that the suit premises was the joint family property but also losing the site of the DV Act. The directions given by the High Court are contained in the paragraph 56 to the following effect:

“56. In these circumstances, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. The matters are remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with the directions given hereinbelow:

(i) At the first instance, in all cases where the respondent’s son/the appellant’s husband has not been impleaded, the Trial Court shall direct his impleadment by invoking its suo motu powers under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

(ii) The Trial Court will then consider whether the appellant had made any unambiguous admission about the respondent’s ownership rights in respect of the suit premises; if she has and her only defence to being dispossessed there from is her right of residence under the DV Act, then the Trial Court shall, before passing a decree of possession on the wife premise of ownership rights, ensure that in view of the subsisting rights of the appellant under the DV Act, she is provided with an alternate accommodation as per Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, which will continue to be provided to her till the subsistence of her matrimonial relationship.

(iii) In cases where the appellant specifically disputes the exclusive ownership rights of the respondents over the suit premises
notwithstanding the title documents in their favour, the Trial Court, while granting her an opportunity to lead evidence in support of her claim, will be entitled to pass interim orders on applications moved by the respondents, directing the appellant to vacate the suit premises subject to the provision of a suitable alternate accommodation to her under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, which direction would also be subject to the final outcome of the suit.

(iv) While determining as to whether the appellant’s husband or the in-laws bears the responsibility of providing such alternate accommodation to the appellant, if any, the Trial Court may be guided by paragraph 46 of the decision in Vinay Verma (supra).

(v) The Trial Court shall ensure that adequate safeguards are put in place to ensure that the direction for alternate accommodation is not rendered meaningless and that a shelter is duly secured for the appellant, during the subsistence of her matrimonial relationship.

(vi) This exercise of directing the appellant to vacate the suit premises by granting her alternate accommodation will be completed expeditiously and not later than 6 months from today.”

17. The plaintiff-appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 18.12.2019 has come up in this appeal.

18. We have heard Shri Prabhjit Jauhar, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel has appeared for the respondent. We have also heard Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned senior counsel and Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel in the connected SLP (C) No.9415 of 2020 in which parties are stated to have entered into a settlement.

19. Shri Prabhjit Jauhar, learned counsel for appellant contends that suit property which is exclusively owned by the appellant is not a shared household. The son of the appellant, Raveen has no right in the property and the son as well as respondent-daughter-in-law were only gratuitous licencees of the appellant. The appellant purchased the property in the year 1983, at that time the son of the appellant was only 14 years old. It is submitted that the respondent can claim right to reside only in house which is either joint family property or the husband of the respondent has a share in it. In the property belonging to father of the husband, she has no right to reside. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on judgment of this Court in S.R. Batra and Anr. Vs. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169, where two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the wife is entitled only to claim a right under Section 17(1) 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.

20. It is submitted that the complaint under the Act, 2005 filed by the respondent was only a counter blast to the Divorce Petition dated 28.11.2014 filed by the husband of the respondent. It is submitted that Sections 17 and 19 of the Act, 2005 do not contemplate a proprietary or ownership right in the shared household for the aggrieved person. Shri Jauhar further submits that her claim for alternate accommodation can be made qua husband and not qua the father-in-law because her relationship in the household emanates pursuant to the marriage and father-in-law cannot be under a statutory obligation to provide for the residence and maintenance of daughter-in-law. Shri Jauhar submits that unless the definition of shared household under Section 2(s) is not interpreted in a manner confining the definition of shared household to joint family or the property where the husband has a share it will create chaos in the society. It is submitted that extensive interpretation of shared household would lead the chaos in the society which needs to be avoided for protecting peace and harmony in the society. He submitted that harmonious construction by interpretation in the suit is to be adopted so that the right of the parties are balanced. Shri Jauhar submits that in her application filed under Section 12 of Act, 2005, the respondent has asked for alternate accommodation.

21. Shri Jauhar submits that the High Court committed error in not following the binding precedence of Delhi High Court itself. Shri Jauhar submits that the respondent never filed a counter claim in the suit filed by the appellant-owner, nor filed a suit for declaration of her claim of property being joint family property. Shri Jauhar submits that the High Court has not adverted to facts of different appeals and all appeals were decided by a common judgment without referring to evidence and pleadings in each appeal separately. The finding of the Trial Court has not been overruled by the High Court in the appellant’s case. Shri Jauhar further submits that husband is not a necessary party in a suit filed by the father-in-law. Shri Jauhar submits that the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC relying on the admission made by the respondent in her application under Section 12 of the Act, 2005. The High Court has not followed the binding judgment of this Court in S. R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra which was binding on the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Shri Jauhar submits that rights of wife in other statutes like Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 are only against the husband.

22. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant supports the judgment of the High Court. Shri Gupta submits that Act, 2005 granted protection and security of residence to woman. Shri Gupta referring to definition of domestic relationship under Section 2(f) contends that respondent was in domestic relationship with the appellant and the appellant was respondent within the meaning of Section 2(q) against whom allegation of domestic violence was made in petition under Section 12. Shri Gupta referring to definition of shared household under Section 2(s) submits that factum of residence and domestic relationship with the respondent are the only qualification to fall within the ambit of definition of shared household. Shri Gupta submits that second part of the definition of the shared household is extensive in nature which gives certain example but cannot be said to be exhaustive looking at scheme of the Act. He submits that when ‘includes’ is used after the term “means” it is extensive and not exhaustive in nature. The respondent being in domestic relationship with the appellant living in the suit property since her marriage and continues to do so till date, the property is shared household where the appellant is staying. It is submitted that for shared household it is not necessary that aggrieved person should have any right, title or interest. It is further submitted that it is also not necessary that the husband of the woman should have any right, title or interest in the house. It is submitted that protection under Section 17 is available in all legal proceedings including the suit filed by the appellant.

23. Referring to Section 26 of the Act, 2005 Shri Gupta submits that relief under Section 19 was very well available in Civil Procedure Code. The plea taken by the respondent in her pleadings in the civil suit would constitute the counter claim which warranted exercise of power of Trial Court under Section 26 of the Act, 2005. Referring to the judgment of this Court in S.R.Batra Vs. Taruna Batra, Shri Gupta submits that the said judgment is distinguishable on facts. He submits that the said case was pre-Act, 2005 case and secondly Taruna Batra admitted that she had shifted to her parents’ residence at the time of institution of the suit. It is submitted that the injunction was denied since Taruna Batra was not residing in the house which finding was not liable to be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 or 227 as held by this Court. Shri Gupta further submits that the judgment of this Court in S.R. Batra case does not lay down correct law. He submits that the definition of “shared household” has not been correctly analysed in S.R. Batra case. The definition of respondent does not include only husband. The relatives of the husband who have treated the aggrieved person with domestic violence can be arrayed as respondent. There is no reason to extend definition of shared household only to property in which the husband has a share. It is submitted that S.R. Batra has not appreciated that second part of the definition of shared household is merely illustration and not exhaustive. S.R.Batra also erred in holding that alternative accommodation under Section 19 can only be enforced against the husband. Shri Gupta submits that the judgment of S.R. Batra does not correctly interpret provisions of Act, 2005. Referring two subsequent judgments of this Court, namely Hiral P. Harsora and others Vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and others, (2016) 10 SCC 165, and Vaishali Abhimanyu Joshi Vs. Nanasaheb Gopal Joshi, (2017) 14 SCC 373, Shri Gupta submits that the above two judgments have taken a view contrary to law lay down in S.R. Batra case. Shri Gupta submits that present was not a case of granting any decree under Order XII Rule 6, the respondent having categorically pleaded in the written statement that the suit property was purchased from the joint family fund. Shri Gupta referred to various documents which were brought on the record before the Trial Court indicating that joint family fund was utilised for purchasing the suit property.

24. Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel supporting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant contends that rights of daughter-in-law are only to the extent of right of the husband/respondent. He submits that in the definition in Section 2(s) the word ‘includes’ has to be read “means and includes”. Referring to term household, Shri Bhushan referred to definition as given by Census of India where common kitchen is a pre-requisite of a household.

25. Ms. Geeta Luthra supporting the submission of Shri Nidhesh Gupta contends that household of father-in-law will be shared household of daughter-in-law where she is living since marriage. Ms. Luthra relies on the judgment of Delhi Court in Eveneet Singh Vs. Prashant Chaudhri, 2010 SCC online Delhi 4507, Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in Eveneet Singh Vs. Prashant Chaudhari, 2011 SCC online Delhi 4651 and Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Preeti Satija Vs. Raj Kumari and Anr., 2014 SCC online Delhi 188.

26. Learned counsel for the parties have also referred to various judgments of this Court and Delhi High Court which we will consider while considering the submissions of the parties in detail.

27. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties following questions arise for determination in this appeal:

(1) Whether definition of shared household under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has to be read to mean that shared household can only be that household which is household of joint family or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share?

(2) Whether judgment of this Court in S.R. Batra and Anr. Vs. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 has not correctly interpreted the provision of Section 2(s) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and does not lay down a correct law?

(3) Whether the High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that suit filed by the appellant could not have been decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC?

(4) Whether, when the defendant in her written statement pleaded that suit property is her shared household and she has right to residence therein, the Trial Court could have decreed the suit of the plaintiff without deciding such claim of defendant which was permissible to be decided as per Section 26 of the Act, 2005?

(5) Whether the plaintiff in the suit giving rise to this appeal can be said to be the respondent as per definition of Section 2(q) of Act, 2005 ?

(6) What is the meaning and extent of the expression “save in accordance with the procedure established by law” as occurring in Section 17(2) of Act, 2005 ?

(7) Whether the husband of aggrieved party (defendant) is necessary party in the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant?

(8) What is the effect of orders passed under Section 19 of the Act, 2005 whether interim or final passed in the proceedings initiated in a civil court of competent jurisdiction?

28. Before we consider the questions as noted above, we need to notice the Statutory Scheme of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

29. The progress of any society depends on its ability to protect and promote the rights of its women. Guaranteeing equal rights and privileges to women by the Constitution of India had marked the step towards the transformation of the status of the women in this country.

30. The domestic violence in this country is rampant and several women encounter violence in some form or the other or almost every day, however, it is the least reported form of cruel behavior. A woman resigns her fate to the never ending cycle of enduring violence and discrimination as a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother, a partner or a single woman in her lifetime. This non-retaliation by women coupled with the absence of laws addressing women’s issues, ignorance of the existing laws enacted for women and societal attitude makes the women vulnerable. The reason why most cases of domestic violence are never reported is due to the social stigma of the society and the attitude of the women themselves, where women are expected to be subservient, not just to their male counterparts but also to the male’s relatives.

31. Till the year 2005, the remedies available to a victim of domestic violence were limited. The women either had to go to the civil court for a decree of divorce or initiate prosecution in the criminal court for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. In both the proceedings, no emergency relief/reliefs is/are available to the victim. Also, the relationships outside the marriage were not recognized. This set of circumstances ensured that a majority of women preferred to suffer in silence, not out of choice but of compulsion.

32. The enactment of Act, 2005 is a milestone for protection of women in this country. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Bill, 2005 marks the objective which was sought to be achieved by the enactment. It is useful to reproduce the Statement of Objects and Reasons, which are in the following words:-

“4. The Bill, inter alia, seeks to provide for the following ==

(i) It covers those women who are or have been in a relation­ship with the abuser where both parties have lived together in a shared household and are re­lated by consanguinity, mar­riage or through a relation­ship in the nature of marriage or adoption. In addition, rela­tionships with family members living together as a joint fam­ily are also included. Even those women who are sisters, widows, mothers, single women, or living with the abuser are entitled to legal protection under the proposed legislation. However, whereas the Bill en­ables the wife or the female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage to file a complaint under the proposed enactment against any relative of the husband or the male partner, it does not enable any female relative of the husband or the male partner to file a complaint against the wife or the female partner.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

(iii) It provides for the rights of women to secure housing. It also provides for the right of a woman to reside in her matrimonial home or shared household, whether or not she has any title or rights in such home or household. This right is secured by a residence order, which is passed by the Magistrate.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX”

33. The Statement of Objects and Reasons refers to three International Conventions where recommendations were made to the parties States to take measures including Legislation to protect women against violence including occurring within the family. General Recommendation No.XII of the United Nations Committee on Convention on Elimination of All Forms of discrimination against women stated:-

“General Recommendation No. 12
(Eighth session, 1989)

Violence against women

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

Considering that Articles 2, 5, 11, 12 and 16 of the Convention require the States parties to act to protect women against violence of any kind occurring within the family, at the work place or in any other area of social life.”

34. Even before the Act, 2005 was enacted, Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji in B.R. Mehta Vs. Atma Devi and Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 183 has noted that right of occupation in matrimonial home which is granted under Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967 in England are not granted in India though it may be that with the change of situation and complex problems arising, it is high time to give the wife or the spouse a right of occupation. In paragraph 6 following was laid down:-

“6.……. . In England the rights of the spouses be it the husband or the wife to the matrimonial home are now governed by the provisions of Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967. Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 22 page 650 deals with the rights of occupation in matrimonial home and paragraph 1047 deals with and provides that where one spouse is entitled to occupy a dwelling house by virtue of any estate or interest or contract or by virtue of any enactment giving him or her the right to remain in occupation, and the other spouse is not so entitled, then the spouse not so entitled has the certain rights (known as “rights of occupation”) that is to say if in occupation, a right not to be evicted or excluded from the dwelling house or any part of it by the other spouse except with the leave of the court given by an order, if not in occupation, a right with the leave of the court so given to enter into and occupy the dwelling house. But such rights are not granted in India though it may be that with change of situation and complex problems arising it is high time to give the wife or the spouse a right of occupation in a truly matrimonial home, in case of marriage breaking up or in case of strained relationship between the husband and the wife

35. In the laws of United Kingdom, the rights of husband or wife to occupy a dwelling house, which has been the matrimonial home, was included in Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967. Section 1(1) of the Act provides:-

“Protection against eviction, etc., from matrimonial home of spouse not entitled by virtue of estate, etc., to occupy if

1. -(1)Where one spouse is entitled to occupy a dwelling house by virtue of any estate or interest or contract or by virtue of any enactment giving him or her the right to remain in occupation, and the other spouse is not so entitled, then, subject to the provisions of this Act, the spouse not so entitled shall have the following rights (in this Act referred to as “rights of occupation”)—

(a) if in occupation, a right not to be evicted or excluded from the dwelling house or any part thereof by the other spouse except with the leave of the court given by an order under this section;

(b) if not in occupation, a right with the leave of the court so given to enter into and occupy the dwelling house.”

36. By subsequent enactment, Matrimonial Homes Act, 1983 although Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967 was repealed, same protection was continued to occupy the matrimonial home and the said right was continued by virtue of Section 1(1), which was to the same effect. The Family Law Act, 1996 was enacted in the United Kingdom where a separate chapter “Chapter IV – Family Homes and Domestic Violence” was enacted. Section 30 of which provision is as follows:-

“30 Rights concerning home where one spouse or civil partner has no estate, etc.

(1) This section applies if—

(a) one spouse or civil partner is entitled to occupy a dwelling-house by virtue of—

(i) a beneficial estate or interest or contract; or

(ii) any enactment giving the right to remain in occupation; and

(b) the other spouse or civil partner is not so entitled.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Part, has the following rights “home rights”—

(a) if in occupation, a right not to be evicted or excluded from the dwelling-house or any part of it by except with the leave of the court given by an order under sec­tion 33;

(b) if not in occupation, a right with the leave of the court so given to enter into and occupy the dwelling-house.

(3) If is entitled under this section to oc­cupy a dwelling-house or any part of a dwelling-house, any payment or tender made or other thing done by in or towards satisfaction of any liability of in respect of rent, mort­gage payments or other outgoings affecting the dwelling-house is, whether or not it is made or done in pursuance of an order under section 40, as good as if made or done by .

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX”

37. The right of occupation of matrimonial home, which was not so far part of the statutory law in India came to be included in Act, 2005. Need of such legislation as noticed by Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji has been fulfilled by enactment of Act, 2005.

38. As noticed above, from the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Act was enacted to fulfill the definite objectives for protection of women. This Court had occasion to examine the purpose of enactment of Act, 2005 in Kunapareddy Alias NookalaShanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and Anr., (2016) 11 SCC 774 wherein paragraph 12 following was stated:-

“12. In fact, the very purpose of enacting the DV Act was to provide for a remedy which is an amalgamation of civil rights of the complainant i.e. aggrieved person. Intention was to protect women against violence of any kind, especially that occurring within the family as the civil law does not address this phenomenon in its entirety. It is treated as an offence Under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860. The purpose of enacting the law was to provide a remedy in the civil law for the protection of women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. It is for this reason, that the Scheme of the Act provides that in the first instance, the order that would be passed by the Magistrate, on a complaint by the aggrieved person, would be of a civil nature and if the said order is violated, it assumes the character of criminality

39. The Act, 2005 is a further step to secure social justice by legislation. There has been several earlier measures for protection of women like Section 125 Cr.P.C. and 498-A of India Penal Code. Justice Krishna Iyer in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors., (1978) 4 SCC 70 noted the objectives of enacting Section 125 Cr.P.C. in following words in paragraph 9:-

“9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by Courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advance the cause–the cause of the derelicts.

40. Enactment of Act, 2005 is another step in the same direction. This Court in Manmohan Attavar Vs. Neelam Manmohan Attavar, (2017) 8 SCC 550 noticed that Act, 2005 has been enacted to create an entitlement in favour of the woman of the right of residence. In paragraph 15, following was observed:-

“15. A reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that it creates an entitlement in favour of the woman of the right of residence under the “shared household” irrespective of her having any legal interests in the same. The direction, inter alia, can include an order restraining dispossession or a direction to remove himself on being satisfied that domestic violence had taken place.”

41. Now, we proceed to notice certain provisions of Act, 2005, which are relevant for determination of the issues as arisen in the present appeal. According to Section 2(a) ”aggrieved person” means any person, who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. “Domestic Relationship” has been defined in Section 2(f) in following words:-

“(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;”

42. The expression “respondent” is defined in Section 2 (q) in following words:-

“(q) “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:

Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner;”

43. The words “adult male” as occurring in Section 2(q) has been struck down by this Court in Hiral P. Harsora and Ors. Vs. Kusum narottamdas Harsora and Ors., (2016) 10 SCC 165. Consequently, the respondent can also be a female in domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. The next definition, which is relevant to be noticed is Section 2(s), which defines shared household. Shared household is defined in following words:-

“(s) “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household;”

44. Section 3 defines “domestic violence”. Sections 4 to 11 occurring in Chapter III deals with powers and duties of protection officers, service providers etc. Section 12 occurring in Chapter IV – “Procedure for obtaining orders of reliefs” deals with details of application to Magistrate. Section 12 is as follows:-

“12. Application to Magistrate.-(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:

Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.

(2) The relief sought for under sub­section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent:

Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under such decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, be executable for the balance amount, if any, left after such set off.

(3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible thereto.

(4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which shall not ordinarily be beyond three days from the date of receipt of the application by the court.

(5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub­section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.”

45. Section 17 provides that every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household. Section 17 is as follows:-

“17. Right to reside in a shared household.-(1)  Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

(2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law.”

46. Section 18 deals with protection orders. Section 19 deals with residence orders. Section 20 deals with monetary reliefs. Section 23 deals with power to grant interim and ex parte orders. Section 26 deals with relief in other suits and legal proceedings.

47. After briefly noticing the outline of Act, 2005, we, now, proceed to consider the questions noted above.

Questions Nos. 1 and 2

48. Both the above questions being inter-related are being taken together. We may recapitulate the facts of the present case in reference to shared household. The suit property was purchased by appellant in the year 1983 in his name. The respondent got married to the son of appellant on 04.03.1995 and after marriage she was living in first floor of suit property. Till July, 2004, the husband of respondent also lived in first floor whereafter due to marital discord, he shifted in the guest room on the ground floor. In the suit filed by the appellant for mandatory and permanent injunction, appellant pleaded that he is the sole owner of the house and prayed for removal of respondent, his daughter-in-law from the first floor of the house. The respondent had filed a written statement in the suit and claimed that the suit property is a shared household where the respondent had right to reside. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the premises is not a shared household since the husband of the respondent neither has any share in the suit premises nor suit premises is a joint family property.    In support of his submission, he relies on judgment of this Court in S.R. Batra and Ors. Vs. Taruna Batra (supra).

49. The definition of shared household given under Section 2(s) as noticed above beginning with expression “shared household means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes…… The section uses both the expressions “means and includes”. A Three Judge bench judgment of this Court in Bharat Coop. Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. Vs. Coop. Bank Employees Union, (2007) 4 SCC 685 had occasion to consider Section 2(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which section used both the words “means and includes”. Explaining both the expressions, following was laid down in paragraph 23:-

“23……. It is trite to say that when in the definition clause given in any statute the word “means” is used, what follows is intended to speak exhaustively. When the word “means” is used in the definition, to borrow the words of Lord Esher, M.R. in Gough v. Gough [(1891) 2 QB 665] it is a “hard-and-fast” definition and no meaning other than that which is put in the definition can be assigned to the same. (Also see P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology [1995 Supp (2) SCC 348 : AIR 1995 SC 1395].) On the other hand, when the word “includes” is used in the definition, the legislature does not intend to restrict the definition: it makes the definition enumerative but not exhaustive. That is to say, the term defined will retain its ordinary meaning but its scope would be extended to bring within it matters, which in its ordinary meaning may or may not comprise. Therefore, the use of the word “means” followed by the word “includes” in Section 2(bb) of the ID Act is clearly indicative of the legislative intent to make the definition exhaustive and would cover only those banking companies which fall within the purview of the definition and no other.”

50. We may notice another judgment of this Court in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2019) 8 SCC 416 where this Court had occasion to consider both the expressions, i.e., “means and includes”. In paragraph
82, this Court laid down:-

“82. …………. In fact, in Jagir Singh v. State of Bihar [(1976) 2 SCC 942] , SCC paras 11 and 19 to 21 and Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State of A.P. [(1989) 1 SCC 164] , SCC paras 8 and 11 (which has been cited in P. Kasilingam [P. Kasilingam v. PSG College of Technology, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 348]), this Court set out definition sections where the expression “means” was followed by some words, after which came the expression “and includes” followed by other words, just as in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti case [Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Shankar Industries, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 361 (2)] . In two other recentjudgments, Bharat Coop. Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. v. Employees Union [(2007) 4 SCC 685], SCC paras   12 and 23 and State of W.B. v. Associated Contractors [State of W.B. v. Associated Contractors, (2015) 1 SCC 32] , SCC para 14, this Court has held that wherever the expression “means” is followed by the expression “and includes” whether with or without additional words separating “means” from “includes”, these expressions indicate that the definition provision is exhaustive as a matter of statutory interpretation. It has also been held that the expression “and includes” is an expression which extends the definition contained in words which follow the expression “means”

51. We may notice two more judgments relied by Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel, i.e., The South Gujarat Roofing Tiles Manufacturers Association and Anr. Vs. The State of Gujarat and Anr., (1976) 4 SCC Shri Bhushan’s submission is that use of expression “includes” in Section 2(s) has to be read as means. He placed reliance on following observations made by this Court in paragraph 5:-

“5. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

……….Though “include” is generally used in interpretation clauses as a word of enlarge­ment, in some cases the context might suggest a different intention. Pottery is an expression of very wide import, embracing all objects made of clay and hardened by heat. If it had been the legislature’s intention to bring within the entry all possible articles of pottery, it was quite unnecessary to add an explanation. We have found that the explanation could not pos­sibly have been introduced to extend the mean­ing of potteries industry or the articles listed therein added ex abundanti cautela. It seems to us therefore that the legislature did not intend everything that the potteries indus­try turns out to be covered by the entry. What then could be the purpose of the explanation. The explanation says that, for the purpose of Entry 22, potteries industry “includes” manu­facture of the nine articles of pottery named therein. It seems to us that the word “in­cludes” has been used here in the sense of ‘means’; this is the only construction that the word can bear in the context. In that sense it is not a word of extension, but limitation; it is exhaustive of the meaning which must be given to potteries industry for the purpose of Entry 22. The use of the word “includes” in the restrictive sense is not unknown. The observa­tion of Lord Watson in Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps which is usually referred to on the use of “include” as a word of extension, is followed by these lines:

“But the word ‘include’ is suscep­tible of another construction, which may become imperative, if the context of the Act is sufficient to show that it was not merely employed for the purpose of adding to the natural sig­nificance of the words or expressions defined. It may be equivalent to ‘mean and include’, and in that case it may afford an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expressions.”

52. Next judgment relied by Shri Bhushan is Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation and Anr. Vs. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited, (2009) 3 SCC 240. In the above case also submission was made before this court that in the definition of person given in section 2(m) of Consumer Protection Act, the expression “includes” should be read as “means”. This Court laid down that interpretation of a word or expression must depend on the text and the context. In paragraphs 14 to 17, following was laid down:-

“14. The learned counsel also submitted that the word “includes” must be read as “means”. In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance upon two decisions of this Court, namely; (1) South Gujarat Roofing Tiles Manufacturers Assn. v. State of Gujarat [(1976) 4 SCC 601] and (2) RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. [(1987) 1 SCC 424].

15. Lord Watson in Dilworth v. Stamps Commr. [1899 AC 99] made the following classic statement: (AC pp. 105-06)

“… The word ‘include’ is very generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. But the word ‘include’ is susceptible of another construction, which may become imperative, if the context of the Act is sufficient to show that it was not merely employed for the purpose of adding to the natural significance of the words or expressions defined. It may be equivalent to ‘mean and include’, and in that case it may afford an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expressions.”

16. Dilworth [1899 AC 99] and few other decisions came up for consideration in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. [(1987) 1 SCC 424] and this Court summarised the legal position that (Peerless case [(1987) 1 SCC 424], SCC pp. 449-50, para 32) inclusive definition by the legislature is used:

“32. … (1) to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases so as to take in the ordinary, popular and natural sense of the words and also the sense which the statute wishes to attribute to it; (2) to include meanings about which there might be some dispute; or (3) to bring under one nomenclature all transactions possessing certain similar features but going under different names.”

17. It goes without saying  that interpretation of a word or expression must depend on the text and the context. The resort to the word “includes” by the legislature often shows the intention of the legislature that it wanted to give extensive and enlarged meaning to such expression. Sometimes, however, the context may suggest that word “includes” may have been designed to mean “means”. The setting, context and object of an enactment may provide sufficient guidance for interpretation of the word “includes” for the purposes of such enactment.”

53. After noticing the ratio of above judgments, Section 2(s), which uses both the expressions “means and includes” and looking to the context, we are of the view that the definition of shared household in Section 2(s) is an exhaustive definition. The first part of definition begins with expression “means” which is undoubtedly an exhaustive definition and second part of definition, which begins with word “includes” is explanatory of what was meant by the definition. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that even if it is accepted that the definition of Section 2(s) is exhaustive, his case is fully covered in both the parts of the definition.

54. The use of both the expressions “means and includes” in Section 2(s) of Act, 2005, thus, clearly indicate the legislative intent that the definition is exhaustive and shall cover only those which fall within the purview of definition and no other.

55. Now, reverting back to the definition of Section 2(s), the definition can be divided in two parts, first, which follows the word “means” and second which follows the word “includes”. The second part which follows “includes” can be further sub-divided in two parts. The first part reads “shared household means a household where the person aggrieved has lived or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent”. Thus, first condition to be fulfilled for a shared household is that person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship. The second part sub- divided in two parts is- (a) includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent and owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and (b)includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. In the above definition, two expressions, namely, “aggrieved person” and “respondent” have occurred. From the above definition, following is clear:- (i) it is not requirement of law that aggrieved person may either own the premises jointly or singly or by tenanting it jointly or singly; (ii) the household may belong to a joint family of which the respondent is a member irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household; and (iii) the shared household may either be owned or tenanted by the respondent singly or jointly.

56. Now, we revert back to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the shared household is that household which belongs to joint family of which husband is a member or husband has share in the shared household.   He finds support for his submission by the judgment of this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra).

57. The judgment of this court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra), which is sheet anchor of the submission of the appellant needs to be noticed in detail. In the above case, the respondent was married with the son of appellant on 14.04.2000. Respondent started living with her husband in the house of appellant No.2 on the second floor. It was not disputed that house belonged to appellant No.2 and her son, i.e., husband of respondent had no share. Husband had filed a divorce petition against respondent whereas respondent filed a criminal case under Sections 406, 498A, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Respondent shifted to her parents’ residence because of the dispute with her husband. She when later tried to enter the house, she found the main entrance locked hence, she filed suit No. 87 of 2003 to grant mandatory injunction to enable her to enter the house. The Trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent. The appellant filed the appeal, which was allowed by dismissing the temporary injunction. Respondent filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was allowed by learned Single Judge holding that the appellant is entitled to reside in the second floor as that was her matrimonial home. The appellant aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court had filed an appeal. This Court in Paragraph 18 observed that since the house belongs to mother-in-law of the respondent and does not belong to the husband, hence, she cannot claim any right to live in the said house. Following was observed in paragraph 18:-

“18. Here, the house in question belongs to the mother-in-law of Smt Taruna Batra and it does not belong to her husband Amit Batra. Hence, Smt Taruna Batra cannot claim any right to live in the said house.”

58. Before this Court, in the above case, the provisions of Act, 2005 were relied. This Court held that the respondent was not residing in the premises in question, a finding of fact recorded by the court below which ought not to be interfered by the High Court under Articles 226 or 227. After taking the aforesaid view, this Court observed that house in question cannot be said to be shared household. In paragraph 22, this Court held:-

“22. Apart from the above, we are of the opinion that the house in question cannot be said to be a “shared household” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (here­inafter referred to as “the Act”).”

59. This Court also noticed Sections 17 and 19 and the argument of respondent that household is a shared household since aggrieved person had lived there in a domestic relationship. Argument of the respondent was noticed in paragraph 24 in following words:-

“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.”

60. This court expressed its dis-agreement with the submission and made following observations in paragraphs 25 to 30:-

“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.

27. It is well settled  that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted.

28. Learned counsel for the respondent Smt Taruna Batra has relied upon Section 19(1)(f) of the Act and claimed that she should be given an alternative accommodation. In our opinion, the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband’s (sic) in-laws or other relatives.

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 2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a “shared household”.

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.”

61. In paragraph 26, this Court observed “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”.

62. The observation of this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 were made while considering the expression “person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived”. This Court observed in paragraph 26 that if the interpretation canvassed by learned counsel for the respondent is accepted that the house of the husband’s relative where respondent resided shall become shared household, shall lead to chaos and would be absurd. The expression “at any stage has lived” occurs in Section 2(s) after the words “where the person aggrieved lives”. The use of the expression “at any stage has lived” immediately after words “person aggrieved lives” has been used for object different to what has been apprehended by this Court in paragraph 26. The expression “at any stage has lived” has been used to protect the women from denying the benefit of right to live in a shared household on the ground that on the date when application is filed, she was excluded from possession of the house or temporarily absent. The use of the expression “at any stage has lived” is for the above purpose and not with the object that wherever the aggrieved person has lived with the relatives of husband, all such houses shall become shared household, which is not the legislative intent. The shared household is contemplated to be the household, which is a dwelling place of aggrieved person in present time.  When we look into the different kinds of orders or reliefs, which can be granted on an application filed by aggrieved person, all orders contemplate providing protection to the women in reference to the premises in which aggrieved person is or was in possession. Our above conclusion is further fortified by statutory scheme as delineated by Section 19 of the Act, 2005.  In event, the definition of shared household as occurring in Section 2(s) is read to mean that all houses where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship alongwith the relatives of the husband shall become shared household, there will be number of shared household, which was never contemplated by the legislative scheme. The entire Scheme of the Act is to provide immediate relief to the aggrieved person with respect to the shared household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived. As observed above, the use of the expression “at any stage has lived” was only with intent of not denying the protection to aggrieved person merely on the ground that aggrieved person is not living as on the date of the application or as on the date when Magistrate concerned passes an order under Section 19. The apprehension expressed by this Court in paragraph 26 in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra), thus, was not true apprehension and it is correct that in event such interpretation is accepted, it will lead to chaos and that was never the legislative intent. We, thus, are of the considered opinion that shared household referred to in Section 2(s) is the shared household of aggrieved person where she was living at the time when application was filed or in the recent past had been excluded from the use or she is temporarily absent.

63. The words “lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship” have to be given its normal and purposeful meaning. The living of woman in a household has to refer to a living which has some permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared household. The intention of the parties and the nature of living including the nature of household have to be looked into to find out as to whether the parties intended to treat the premises as shared household or not. As noted above, Act 2005 was enacted to give a higher right in favour of woman. The Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the woman who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. The Act has to be interpreted in a manner to effectuate the very purpose and object of the Act. Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of Act, 2005 grants an entitlement in favour of the woman of the right of residence under the shared household irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same or not.

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 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 Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) is not correct interpretation and the said judgment does not lay down the correct law.

65. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on another Two Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatsalben Ashokbhai Patel and Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 649. In the above case, this Court had occasion to consider the provisions of Act, 2005. The question which came for consideration in the above case has been noticed in paragraph 14 of the judgment, which is to the following effect:-

“14. The questions which arise for consid­eration are:

(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the property of Appellant 1 could have been sold in auction? and

(ii) Whether in a case of this nature, the bail granted to the appellants should have been directed to be cancelled?”

66. In the above case, the complaint was filed by third respondent against her husband and appellant’s father-in-law and mother-in-law under Sections 406 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. The bail granted to the appellants was cancelled.  Proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated attaching the properties of the appellant. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate asked the District Magistrate to auction the attached properties. The properties of the appellant was auctioned and this Court in the above case has held that the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 that maintenance of a wife, during subsistence of marriage, is on the husband and on the applicant to maintain the daughter-in-law arises only when the husband has died. In paragraphs 21 and 22 following was laid down:-

“21. Maintenance of a married wife, during subsistence of marriage, is on the husband. It is a personal obligation. The obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law arises only when the husband has died. Such an obligation can also be met from the properties of which the husband is a co-sharer and not otherwise. For invoking the said provision, the husband must have a share in the property. The property in the name of the mother-in-law can neither be a subject-matter of attachment nor during the lifetime of the husband, his personal liability to maintain his wife can be directed to be enforced against such property.

22. Wholly uncontentious issues have been raised before us on behalf of Sonalben (wife). It is well settled that apparent state of affairs of state shall be taken as real state of affairs. It is not for an owner of the property to establish that it is his self-acquired property and the onus would be on the one, who pleads contra. Sonalben might be entitled to maintenance from her husband. An order of maintenance might have been passed but in view of the settled legal position, the decree, if any, must be executed against her husband and only his properties could be attached therefor but not of her mother-in-law.”

67. In paragraph 27, this Court further held:-

“27. The Domestic Violence Act provides for a higher right in favour of a wife. She not only acquires a right to be maintained but also thereunder acquires a right of residence. The right of residence is a higher right. The said right as per the legislation extends to joint properties in which the husband has a share.”

68. In paragraph 28, this court noticed the judgment of this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra).

69. In the facts of the above case, this Court held that the High Court erred in cancelling the bail of the appellants. Allowing the appeal, following directions were issued in paragraph 51 of the judgment:-

“51. Having regard to the facts and cir­cumstances of this case we are of the opinion that the interest of justice shall be subserved if the impugned judgments are set aside with the following directions:

(i) The property in question shall be re­leased from attachment.

(ii) The 3rd respondent shall refund the sum of Rs 1 lakh to the respondent with inter­est @ 6% per annum.

(iii) The amount of Rs 4 lakhs deposited by the 1st respondent shall be refunded to him im­mediately with interest accrued thereon.

(iv) The 3rd respondent should be entitled to pursue her remedies against her husband in accordance with law.

(v) The learned Magistrate before whom the cases filed by the 3rd respondent are pending should bestow serious consideration of dispos­ing of the same, as expeditiously as possible.

(vi) The 3rd respondent shall bear the costs of the appellant which are quantified at Rs 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) consoli­dated.”

70. In the above case, this Court has held that property of mother-in-law cannot be attached since the maintenance of wife during the married life is on the husband. The question which fell for consideration before this Court in above case was as to whether the property of the appellant could have been sold in auction and the bail granted to the appellants should have been cancelled as noted in paragraph 14. No issue regarding right to reside in a shared household had arisen in the above case and the above case is entirely different from the present case, the above case arose out of criminal proceedings on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent against the appellant. The above judgment in no manner supports the case of the appellant. Further in the above case, this Court relied on judgment of S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra), we have observed above that S.R. Mehta does not lay down a correct law.

71. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on few judgments of Delhi High Court in support of his submission. Delhi High Court in Eveneet Singh Vs. Prashant Chaudhri, 2010 SCC Online Del 4507 had considered the provisions of Act, 2005 and also the definition of shared household.  In paragraphs 16 and 17 following was laid down:-

“16. The definition of “shared household” emphasizes the factum of a domestic relation­ship and no investigation into the ownership of the said household is necessary, as per the definition. Even if an inquiry is made into the aspect of ownership of the household, the defi­nition casts a wide enough net. It is couched in inclusive terms and is not in any way, ex­haustive (S. Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala, 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 883). It states that “…in­cludes such a household whether owned or ten­anted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by ei­ther of them in respect of which either the ag­grieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, inter­est or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household”

(emphasis supplied).

17. It would not be out of place to notice here that the use of the term “respondent” is unqualified in the definition nor is there any qualification to it under Sections 12, 17 or 19. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that the definition does not extend to a house which is owned by a mother-in-law or any other female relative, since they are encompassed un­der the definition of ‘respondent’ under Sec­tion 2(q).”

71. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court affirmed the judgment in Eveneet Singh Vs. Prashant Chaudhari, 2011 SCC Online Del 4651 of the learned Single Judge as noted above. In paragraph 14, the Division Bench laid down following:-

“14. It is apparent that clause (f) of sub­section 1 of Section 19 of the Act is intended to strike a balance between the rights of a daughter-in-law and her in-laws, if a claim to a shared residence by the daughter-in-law pertains to a building in which the matrimonial home was set up belongs to her mother-in-law or father-in-law.

73. Another judgment which need to be noticed of Delhi High Court is Preeti Satija Vs. Raj Kumari and Anr., 2014 SCC Online Del 188. In paragraphs 20 and 21, the Division Bench laid down following:-

“20. Crucially, Parliament’s intention by the 2005 Act was to secure the rights of ag­grieved persons in the shared household, which could be tenanted by the Respondent (including relative of the husband) or in respect of which the Respondent had jointly or singly any right, title, interest, or “equity”. For instance, a widow (or as in this case, a daughter in law, estranged from her husband) living with a mother-in-law, in premises owned by the latter, falls within a “domestic relationship”. The obligation not to disturb the right to resi­dence in the shared household would continue even if the mother-in-law does not have any right, title or interest, but is a tenant, or entitled to “equity” (such as an equitable right to possession) in those premises. This is because the premises would be a “shared house­hold”. The daughter-in-law, in these circum­stances is entitled to protection from dispos­session, though her husband never had any own­ership rights in the premises. The right is not dependent on title, but the mere factum of res­idence. Thus, even if the mother-in-law is a tenant, then, on that ground, or someone having equity, she can be injuncted from dispossessing the daughter in law. In case the mother in law is the owner, the obligation to allow the daughter in law to live in the shared house­hold, as long as the matrimonial relationship between her and the husband subsists, contin­ues. The only exception is the proviso to 19(1) (b), which exempts women from being directed to remove themselves from the shared household. No such exception has been carved out for the other reliefs under Section 19, especally in respect of protection orders. Had the Parlia­ment intended to create another exception in favor of women, it would have done so. This omission was deliberate and in consonance with the rest of the scheme of the Act. There can be other cases of domestic relationships such as an orphaned sister, or widowed mother, living in her brother’s or son’s house. Both are cov­ered by the definition of domestic relation­ship, as the brother is clearly a Respondent. In such a case too, if the widowed mother or sister is threatened with dispossession, they can secure reliefs under the Act, notwithstand­ing exclusive ownership of the property by the son or brother. Thus, excluding the right of residence against properties where the husband has no right, share, interest or title, would severely curtail the extent of the usefulness of the right to residence.

21. The other aspect, which this Court wishes to highlight, is that the 2005 Act applies to all communities, and was enacted “to provide more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family”. The right to residence and creation of mechanism to enforce is a ground breaking measure, which Courts should be alive to. Restricting the scope of the remedies, including in respect of the right to reside in shared household, would undermine the purpose of this enactment. It is, therefore, contrary to the scheme and the objects of the Act, as also the unambiguous text of Section 2(s), to restrict the application of the 2005 Act to only such cases where the husband alone owns some property or has a share in it. Crucially, the mother-in-law (or a father-in-law, or for that matter, “a relative of the husband”) can also be a Respondent in the proceedings under the 2005 Act and remedies available under the same Act would necessarily need to be enforced against them.”

Against above judgment of Delhi High Court, Civil Appeal No. 9723 of 2014 is pending in this Court.

74. In another elaborate judgment, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur and Ors., 2014 SCC Online Del 7617 had considered the various aspects of Act, 2005. Dealing with right of residence in paragraphs 58 to 60, following was held:-

“58. It may be highlighted that the Act does not confer any title or proprietary rights in favour of the aggrieved person as misunderstood by most, but merely secures a ‘right of residence’ in the ‘shared household’. Section 17(2) clarifies that the aggrieved person may be evicted from the ‘shared household’ but only in accordance with the procedure established by law. The legislature has taken care to calibrate and balance the interests of the family members of the respondent and mitigated the rigour by expressly providing under the provisio to Section 19(1) that whilst adjudicating an application preferred by the aggrieved person it would not be open to the Court to pass directions for removing a female member of the respondents family from the “shared household”. Furthermore, in terms of Section 19(1)(f), the Court may direct the respondent to secure same level of accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the “shared household” or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require.

59. The seemingly ‘radical’ provisions comprised in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 must be understood and appreciated in light of the prevalent culture and ethos in our society.

60. The broad and inclusive definition of the term ‘shared household’ in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is in consonance with the family patterns in India, where married couple continue to live with their parents in homes owned by parents.”

75. The Delhi High Court in the above case has rightly considered the concept of shared household as occurring in Section 2(s) of the Act, 2005.

76. We also need to notice several judgments of Delhi High Court and other High Courts, which have been relied by Shri Jauhar.    The judgments of Delhi High Court relied by Shri Jauhar are:-