2021 SCC Vol. 1 Part 3

Read the seminal judgment of Supreme Court on requirements for a premises in question to qualify as “shared household” for purposes of the Domestic Violence Act, expertly analysed by our Editors in over 12 short notes in the SCC Issue dated 21st January, 2021 (Vol. 1 Part 3). Is it the requirement of law that the aggrieved person must own the premises jointly or singly or by tenanting it jointly or singly? Can the premises belonging to any relative of husband come under shared household?

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 34 and Pt. II (Ss. 44 to 48): Principles summarized regarding when challenge to a foreign award under S. 34 in respect of arbitration agreements/awards to which ruling in Balco, (2012) 9 SCC 552, does not apply, and instead principle laid down in Bhatia International, (2002) 4 SCC 105, applies, is maintainable. Based on these principles, held, such challenge is not maintainable where the juridical seat of arbitration is outside India and arbitration is conducted in accordance with the Rules of ICC (i.e. a supranational body of rules). [Noy Vallesina Engg. SpA v. Jindal Drugs Ltd., (2021) 1 SCC 382]

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Ss. 2(s), 17 and 19 — Shared household: Requirements for premises in question to qualify as “shared household” for purposes of the DV Act, 2005, explained in detail. For the premises in question to fall within definition of “shared household” under the DV Act, 2005, firstly, it is not requirement of law that aggrieved person may either own the premises jointly or singly or by tenanting it jointly or singly. Secondly, 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. Thirdly, the shared household may either be owned or tenanted by the respondent singly or jointly. Shared household may even be premises belonging to any relative of husband with whom woman lives in domestic relationship but living must have some permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared household. Intention of parties and nature of living including nature of household are relevant considerations for ascertaining whether parties treated premises as shared household. [Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414]


Read more:

Cases Reported | Supreme Court Cases

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.