NE NEWS SERVICE
NEW DELHI, OCT 15
In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that the relief granting right to residence to a married woman under the domestic violence law by a criminal court is “relevant” and can be considered even in civil proceedings seeking her eviction from the matrimonial home.
Deliberating in detail about the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the apex court said, “the progress of any society depends on its ability to protect and promote the rights of its women.
“Guaranteeing equal rights and privileges to women by the Constitution had marked the step towards the transformation of the status of the women in this country,” it said.
A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy, and M R Shah also termed as “incorrect law” and set aside an earlier judgment’s interpretation of the definition of “shared household” under the Act and said that the definition was quite exhaustive and intended to provide the residence to the victim women under the law.
“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,” the bench said in its 151-page judgment.
It said shared household meant the place where the woman lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the husband and it includes the house “owned or tenanted”.
The top court, however, said the interim order protecting the right to residence of a woman under the law will not come in the way of filing of civil cases related to the property.
“The pendency of proceedings under (Domestic Violence) Act or any order interim or final passed under the D.V. Act under Section 19 regarding the right of residence is not an embargo for initiating or continuing any civil proceedings, which relate to the subject matter of order interim or finally passed in proceedings under the DV Act,” it said.
“The judgment or order of the criminal court granting an interim or final relief under Section 19 of DV Act are relevant within the meaning of Section 43 of the Evidence Act and can be referred to and looked into by the civil court,” it held.
A civil court is to determine issues in proceedings based on evidence which has been led by the parties before it, the judgment said.
Referring to facts of the case, the court said the lawsuit filed in a civil court for eviction of a woman was “fully maintainable” and issues raised by her father-in-law, who claims to own the house, as well as by the woman claiming a right to the residence were to be “addressed and decided based on evidence”.
The top court’s verdict came on an appeal of 76-year-old Delhi resident Satish Chander Ahuja against a Delhi High Court”s judgment.
The Delhi High Court had set aside an order of a trial court passed in 2019 asking the daughter-in-law of Ahuja to vacate his premises.
The High Court had also passed several directions and asked the civil court to decide the lawsuit afresh.
Ahuja had said that the property belonged to him and neither his son nor his daughter-in-law has any ownership rights over it and it led to the passing of an order asking the woman to vacate the premises.
The husband had filed a separate case for a decree of divorce against his wife and the woman had filed a criminal complaint under the domestic violence law against the husband, Ahuja, and the mother-in-law.
A criminal court had passed an interim order under the Domestic Violence Act that she be not dispossessed until further orders.
However, the father-in-law then filed a civil suit and got a decree of eviction.
The top court concurred with the high court’s finding which had said that in all the cases, the husband of the woman needed to be made parties by the trial court by invoking its “suo motu powers” under the Civil Procedure Code.
“The Trial Court will then consider whether the appellant had made any unambiguous admission about the respondent”s ownership rights in respect of the suit premises; if she has and her only the defence to being dispossessed therefrom is her right of residence under the DV Act, then the Trial Court shall, before passing a decree of possession on the wife premise of ownership rights, ensure that in view of the subsisting rights of the appellant under the DV Act, she is provided with an alternate accommodation as per Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, which will continue to be provided to her till the subsistence of her matrimonial relationship,” the high court had held.
