{"id":237531,"date":"2020-10-16T02:02:37","date_gmt":"2020-10-15T20:32:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=237531"},"modified":"2020-12-19T22:44:16","modified_gmt":"2020-12-19T17:14:16","slug":"domestic-violence-sc-wife-can-claim-right-to-residence-in-shared-household-belonging-to-not-just-husband-but-also-to-his-relatives-read-conditions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/16\/domestic-violence-sc-wife-can-claim-right-to-residence-in-shared-household-belonging-to-not-just-husband-but-also-to-his-relatives-read-conditions\/","title":{"rendered":"[Domestic Violence] SC| Wife can claim right to residence in shared household belonging to not just husband but also to his relatives. Read conditions"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Supreme Court:<\/strong> Answering important question pertaining to the interpretation and working of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) in relation to right of residence in the shared household, the 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has held that<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

In the judgment running into over 150 pages, the Court elaborately discussed and interpreted the provisions and scheme of DV Act. Overruling the law laid down in SR Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169<\/a>,<\/strong> the Court held that respondent in a proceeding under Domestic Violence Act can be any relative of the husband and 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.<\/p>\n

In SR Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169<\/a>, <\/strong>a two judge-bench had held that where it was 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.<\/p>\n

\n

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE JUDGMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\n

WHAT IS A SHARED HOUSEHOLD?<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cMeans and includes\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The definition of shared household in Section 2(s) of the DV Act is an exhaustive definition. The first part of definition begins with expression \u201cmeans\u201d which is undoubtedly an exhaustive definition and second part of definition, which begins with word \u201cincludes\u201d is explanatory of what was meant by the definition.<\/p>\n

The use of both the expressions \u201cmeans and includes\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

Conditions to be fulfilled for a shared household<\/strong><\/p>\n

(i) person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship.<\/p>\n

(ii) (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<\/p>\n

(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.<\/p>\n

\u201cAt any stage has lived\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The use of the expression \u201cat any stage has lived\u201d immediately after words \u201cperson aggrieved lives\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

The shared household is contemplated to be the household, which is a dwelling place of aggrieved person in present time.<\/p>\n

\u201c… 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. .\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Further, 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.<\/p>\n

Hence, the words \u201clives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

IS RIGHT TO RESIDENCE UNDER SECTION 19 AN <\/b>INDEFEASIBLE<\/b><\/span> RIGHT?<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The right to residence under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when the 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile granting relief both in application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 or in any civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

WHO CAN BE A RESPONDENT? <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

There are two conditions for a person to be treated to be respondent within the meaning of Section 2(q), i.e.,<\/p>\n