By Advocate Amit Shani, Ex Asst. Advocate General, Punjab Government
When the matrimonial relationships get estranged the parties to resist living with each other. There can be efforts to disposes the daughter in law/aggrieved women from the matrimonial home or there can be a circumstance when a woman due to cruelty or some other exigency was constrained to leave the matrimonial home/shared house, and thereafter she is not allowed to enter and reside again in her matrimonial home/shared house. Keeping in view the aforesaid exigencies in mind the legislature in its prudence introduced the concept of “Shared House” and “Residence orders” through the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The ‘Residence order’ may encompass in its ambit following direction from the Court of Magistrate:
- The Court may restrain the husband/respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved women from the shared household. It is immaterial whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household i.e. any title in the property of shared household.
- It is seen that the husband or in-laws are very violent and may cause a threat to life or safety of the aggrieved women. The Court may direct the respondent to remove himself from the shared household.
- The court may also restrain the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved women/wife resides.
- It is experienced that the husband or in-laws sell the property in order to deprive the aggrieved women of residing in the property. The Court may order restraining the respondent from renouncing, alienating or disposing of the shared household or encumbering the same.
- In case it not feasible for the aggrieved women to live in the shared house the Court may direct the respondent to secure the same level of alternate 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.
The bedrock on the basis of which ‘Residence order’ can be claimed from the Court is the domestic relation enjoyed in the ‘Shared House’ by the daughter in law/aggrieved women. The aggrieved women need to show that she was in a domestic relationship and was residing in a ‘Shared House’.
The issue regarding the “Shared House” under domestic Violence, 2005 is settled by the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of HMJ Sh. Ashok Bhushan, HMJ Sh. R. Subhash Reddy and HMJ Sh. M.R. Shah, JJ. in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja, Civil Appeal No. 2483 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1048 of 2020) Decided on October 15, 2020.
In this case, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier judgement in the case of S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, [(2007) 3 SCC 169], wherein it was 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 Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja held that the interpretation of the definition of the shared household as put by this Court in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (supra) is not correct interpretation and the said judgment does not lay down the correct law.
The Supreme Court held that Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence 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. It held that ‘Respondent’ in a proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act can be any relative of the husband. In the event, the shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the said house will become a shared household.
The Court concluded that the definition of the shared household cannot be read to mean that shared household can only be that household which is household of the joint family of which husband is a member or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share.
Does that mean that any temporary or casual living for a fleeting period will also get covered in the definition of ‘Shared House’? The Court held that 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.
From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the shared household of a daughter in law/aggrieved woman can belong to any relative of the husband with whom the aggrieved woman has lived in a domestic relationship. Does that mean that the relatives of the husband or in-laws are remedy less against the daughter in law/aggrieved woman and they have no alternative except to live with an aggrieved woman despite estranged relationships or is there any other remedy available to them under the law? What should be the scenario when the aggrieved woman/daughter in law is provided at the same level of alternate accommodation or payment of rent is made to the aggrieved woman?
The Supreme Court held that the right to residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not an indefeasible right of residence in the Shared House especially when the aggrieved women/daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law.
The Court also held that a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction/eviction or possession by the owner of the property is maintainable before a Competent Court. The Respondents/In-laws/Husband can adopt the procedure established by law by for eviction or exclusion of the daughter in law/aggrieved person from the shared household. The Competent Court can decide the claim in a properly instituted suit by the owner as to whether the daughter in law/ aggrieved women need to be excluded or evicted from the shared household.
Do the landlord is also bound by the ‘Residence order’ passed by the Court against the In-laws or the Husband. What if the husband/In-laws who are the tenant are defaulting payment of rent or have violated any other condition of Rent/lease agreement and the contract is terminated and lessor wants the property to be vacated? Do the Landlord is remedy less? The Supreme Court clarified that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not operate against the landlord/lessor/licensor in initiating an appropriate proceeding for eviction of the tenant/allottee/licensee qua the shared household. However, in case the proceedings are due to any collusion between the two, the woman, who is living in the shared household has right to resist the proceedings on all grounds which the tenant/lessee/licensee could have taken in the proceedings.
