Authored by Prashant Mehta & Himanshu Kapoor
In the recent verdict pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“SC”), in Satish Ahuja v Sneha Ahujai it was held that the victims of domestic abuse have the right to residence at properties owned by in-laws. While overruling its earlier judgment in the matter of S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batraii, the SC has empowered the women of our country and given a laudable and correct interpretation to the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”).
The present appeal was filed by father in law challenging the order passed by the Delhi High Court. The SC after examining the various provisions of the DV Act held that DV proceedings are primarily civil proceedings in nature which provides civil remedy in the first instance and in cases where orders passed under DV Act are not complied with criminal consequences ensue.
The SC while further analysing the definition of Shared Household under the DV Act held that “there is no such requirement that the house may be owned singly or jointly by the husband”iii. The Court further held that “the definition of shared household given in section 2(s) cannot be read to mean that shared household can only be that household which is the household of the joint family of which husband is a member or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share.”iv
The SC held that the definition of Shared Household is an exhaustive definition as the definition uses the phrase “Means and includes”. It held that the words “at any stage has lived” used in Section 2(s) i.e. definition of shared household does not mean that every such household where the aggrieved person (in this case daughter-in-law) has lived with the relative of the husband will not become the shared household, as that was never the intent of the Parliament while drafting the Act. Rather a shared household will be a household where the aggrieved person has stayed during the present time i.e. has stayed with some permanency and, briefly staying at a house will not be covered under the definition of shared household.
The SC further observed that the purpose and object of the Act was to grant a right of residence to the aggrieved person, and by giving such interpretation, the Supreme Court has empowered the women against the various collusive defences taken by the husband and in laws in such matters, wherein the women were left shelter less during the divorce proceedings.
In the present judgment the SC also took note of the fact that by way of the judgment of Hiral P. Harsora and others Vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsorav, the words ‘adult male’ have been struck down from the definition of ‘Respondent’ as provided for in Section 2(q) of the Act. Hence, if any person has stayed in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under the Act they will be treated as a Respondent.
The Supreme Court also clarifies the fact that the right of residence in a shared household as given to the aggrieved person under Section 17 of the DV Act is not absolute and comes with an exception as provided for under Section 17 (2) of the DV Act. The section categorically states “shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household save in accordance with procedure established by law”. Thus, if a party resists a suit for eviction from a household claiming it to be the shared household, the burden lies on the party which is resisting it to prove by way of pleadings and evidence to show as to how it is the shared household of that party and if the court is satisfied only then the party resisting it can get the protection as provided for under Section 17 (1) of the DV Act.
The SC further held that the right of residence is not an indefensible right of residence in shared household especially when the daughter in law is pitted against aged in laws who are senior citizens as they are also entitled to live peacefully and not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter in law. Therefore, the Court must do a balancing of the rights of both parties. The Court while upholding para 56 of the Impugned Judgment of the High Court held that the factors to be considered while doing the balancing act is whether the relationship between the son and father is acrimonious. In case where it is found to be acrimonious the duty to provide accommodation would be only on the son. However, where the father and son are found to be colluding with each other, the duty to provide shelter to daughter in law will be on both i.e. parents and son. In cases where son or his family is ill treating the parents, the parents would be entitled to seek an unconditional eviction of the son and his family. Further, in cases where the son has deserted his parents and his wife, in such case the in laws will be required only to provide accommodation for a reasonable period to the daughter in law during which period she is able to seek her remedies against the husband. The Court in such circumstances shall ensure adequate safeguards are put in place to ensure that the direction of alternate accommodation is not provided meaningless during the subsistence of the matrimonial relationshipvi.
Further, in case the shared household of the woman is tenanted/allotted/licenced accommodation wherein the said tenancy/allotment/licence is in the name of the father in law, husband or any other relative, the DV Act does not operate as bar on the said landlord/lessor/licensor for initiating an eviction proceeding against the said tenant/allottee/licensor qua the shared household. However, in case such proceeding has been initiated in collusion with the father in law, husband or any other relative, then the woman will have a right to contest the proceedings on all grounds for seeking protection.
As the above issues would normally require evidence to e led the SC further held that the Trial Courts should not normally direct eviction of daughter in law in haste by exercising powers under order XII Rule 6 CPC as the said powers are discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. For deciding the above issues, the SC further held that orders passed by criminal court would have their due weightage when produced before the civil court even though such orders of criminal court would not be binding on the civil court.
This shows that the present SC judgment takes a balanced view and does not simply and blindly favour the women but also protects the owner of the property from being harassed with unnecessary and bogus claims.
With this judgment of the SC, we now hope that there will be uniformity in the decisions of the High Court all over the country on the basis of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court which was not the case earlier.
i Civil Appeal No. 2483 of 2020 dated 15 October 2020
ii (2007) 3 SCC 169
iii Page 52 & 63 of the Judgment
iv Page 82 of the Judgment
v (2016) 10 SCC 165
vi Page 81 of the Judgment