_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - Satish Chandra Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja
Case Citation - Civil Appeal No. 2483 of 2020
Parties Involved -
Petitioner - Satish Chandra Ahuja
Respondent - Sneha Ahuja
Bench -
Justice Ashok Bhushan
Justice R Subhash Reddy
Justice M.R. Shah
Relevant Acts and Sections -
Facts of the Case
Satish Chander Ahuja had filed a lawsuit against his daughter-in-law for compulsory and permanent injunction and the recovery of damages incurred. He said the land belonged to him and that his son or daughter-in-law had no ownership of said land, leading to an order for the woman to vacate the property. The husband had filed a separate divorce lawsuit against his wife, and the woman had filed a criminal complaint under the domestic violence law against her husband and her mother-in-law.
The Delhi High Court had set aside a court ruling passed in 2019 asking the daughter-in-law to leave the place. The High Court also appealed several cases and asked the Civil court to reconsider the case. He later appealed in the Supreme Court and placed his trust in Batra's 2006 judgment and that the property was not a shared house because the husband had no share in the suit yard or suit yard of the family property.
Issue of the Case
Whether the 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 of joint family or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share?
Whether or not the judgment in S.R. Batra and Anr. Vs. Taruna Batra has correctly interpreted Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Whether the High Court has rightly concluded that suit filed by the appellant could not have been decreed under Order XII Rule 6 CPC?
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 the defendant which was permissible to be decided as per Section 26 of the Act?
Whether the plaintiff in the suit giving rise to this appeal can be said to be the respondent as per the definition of Section 2(q) of the Act?
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 the Act?
Is the husband of the aggrieved party necessary in the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant?
What is the effect of orders passed under Section 19 of the Act, whether interim or final passed in the proceedings initiated in a civil court of competent jurisdiction?
Arguments of the Plaintiff
Plaintiff claimed that he and his wife had become a victim of domestic violence on the defendant's part. Plaintiff pleaded that the status of occupation of the defendant as a daughter-in-law during the subsistence of marriage with the son could be said to be permissive, and the 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. The plaintiff in the suit prayed for a 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.
Plaintiff pleads that the defendant has filed false and frivolous cases against the plaintiff and his wife, and hence he prays for the removal of the defendant from the suit property so as he may live a peaceful life.
Arguments of the Defendant
The defendant claimed that the suit property is a shared household as per provision of Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the defendant has the right to stay/reside in the shared household. The plaintiff has filed suit in the collaboration of his son Raveen Ahuja to deprive the legal right of the defendant's residence and her daughters in the suit property. It was pleaded further that the defendant had 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 on the first floor, which is a matrimonial home of the defendant.
Judgment of the Court
The SC in the case of Bharat Coop. Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. Vs. Coop. Bank Employees Union, explained the term "means and includes." The court held that when a provision used the term "means," it would be considered a hard and fast definition and no other interpretation can be assigned. When the term "includes" is used, the legislature has made the definition enumerative. Therefore, using the term "means and includes" indicated that the legislature intended to make the definition exhaustive. While interpreting the extent of the definition of shared household, the court broke the definition into two parts.
The first part read, "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, the 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 read, which follows "includes," can be further subdivided into two parts.
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
includes such a household that 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.
From the above definition, the following was clear:
it is no requirement of law that aggrieved person may either own the premises jointly or singly or by tenanting it jointly or singly.
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.
the shared household may either be owned or tenanted by the respondent singly or jointly.
Therefore, the court was of the view that the definition of a shared household is an exhaustive definition.
The court had stated that "mere fleeting or casual living" doesn't constitute a shared household. The intention of the parties has to be looked upon to check whether a house can be said to be a shared household. The court found that the S.R. Batra and Anr. Vs. Taruna Batra judgment did not take into its account the other parts of the definition. It was held in this case 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 court held that the definition of the term 'respondent' doesn't only constitute the husband and his relatives. Therefore, the shared household belonging 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.
Overruling the above judgment, the court 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 household of the joint family to which husband is a member or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share," i.e., the daughter-in-law will have the right to reside in the house irrespective of her husband's right or share in it. The court also stated the entire legislative intent behind the 2005 Act was to safeguard women and give them a right to have a household where she has lived throughout her entire marital life. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed by the Supreme Court.
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " Do Spouses Have Any Rights On Their In-laws Property?" by clicking the button below.
Comentarios