Even If There Is No Domestic Violence, Every Woman In A Domestic Relationship Has The Right To Live In A Shared Household: Supreme Court

CAUSE TITLE:
Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi

DATE OF ORDER:
12 May 2022

JUDGE(S):
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice BV Nagarathna

PARTIES:
Petitioner(s): Prabha Tyagi
Respondent(s): Kamlesh Devi

SUBJECT

Following her husband's death, a woman filed an application under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act against her mother-in-law and father-in-law, demanding residency in her late husband's property, restitution of streedhan, and other reliefs.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter as The D.V. Act]

Section 12: Application to Magistrate

An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved can file an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act.

Section 17: Right to reside in a shared household

OVERVIEW

• According to the aggrieved person, her marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals and the her family members had given dowry to the respondents and Stridhana to her.
• Following the wedding, she was residing at the ancestral home of the respondents.
• The husband of the aggrieved died in a car accident. Prior to the death of her husband, the aggrieved had conceived a child and gave birth to a daughter. The in-laws stated that the daughter born was not of their son.
• Owing to the misbehaviour and torture by her matrimonial family after her husband’s death, she moved to Dehradun, with her daughter, where she began working as a teacher to support herself and her child.
• Stridhana was never allowed to be enjoyed by her and even after leaving her matrimonial home, Stridhana was being used by her in-laws. The aggrieved sent a legal notice, requesting them to return the articles of Stridhana, however, there was no response to the same.
• The father of the aggrieved had gifted her a car, at the time of her wedding and the same was registered in the name of her deceased husband. Owing to the accident the car had also been damaged. The aggrieved’s mother-in-law had submitted an application before the insurance company, stating that she was the mother and the only legal heir of the deceased and therefore compensation must be made in her favour.
• There was a land to which the deceased husband of the aggrieved had right and title. It was alleged that the respondents, on several occasions threatened the aggrieved if she ever attempted to claim any right over her husband’s property.
• With this, the aggrieved approached the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate and sought protection and residence orders and compensation orders to be passed.
• In response to the application filed by the aggrieved, the respondents stated that the marriage was solemnized at a simple ceremony. No dowry or articles of Stridhana were handed over to the respondents at the time of the ceremony. The aggrieved could not have conceived a child through the deceased in a span of twenty-eight days from the date of the marriage and as such a claim was not only false but unnatural.
• The respondents did not torture the aggrieved. Her statement that she was residing in the ancestral home of her husband, was untrue as she only stayed with the respondents for one night after her marriage.
• Regarding the car, it was stated that it was not a part of the Stridhana, but was purchased by the aggrieved’s husband after borrowing money from respondent.
• The aggrieved by presenting false facts had got her name entered as the legal heir of the land owned by her husband.
• The Special Judicial Magistrate- I, partly allowed the application filed by the aggrieved and directed the respondents to pay monetary compensation for insulting and maligning the aggrieved. The articles of Stridhana mentioned in the list, except the Car, were to be made available to the aggrieved. It was also directed that the respondents shall not obstruct the aggrieved and her daughter from enjoying the property of her husband.
• Being aggrieved, mother-in-law of the aggrieved, preferred Criminal Appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge. The First Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court.
• Aggrieved by the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the aggrieved preferred a criminal revision petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The criminal revision petition was dismissed and the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge was sustained.
• The aggrieved appellant then approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court.

ISSUES

• Whether it is mandatory for the aggrieved person to reside with those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled at the point of commission of violence?
• Whether there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• The High Court and the First Appellate Court erred in setting aside the judgement of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate-I on the primary ground that the aggrieved person did not share a household with the respondents and that the parties did not have a domestic relationship, so no relief could be granted under the D.V. Act. Expounding on the point, the counsel for the appellant-aggrieved person used Sections 2 (f) and 2 (s) of the D.V. Act to argue that in order to be covered by the D.V. Act, an aggrieved person must be in a "domestic relationship" as defined by the D.V. Act. The requirements of the D.V. Act would apply if such a person is currently living, or has previously lived, in a "shared household" with the persons accused of domestic violence. In this instance, the aggrieved person had lived in the respondents' family home following the death of her husband. It was then argued that the aggrieved person's husband's death would not result in the domestic partnership ending. By virtue of her marriage, the appellant-aggrieved individual would remain linked to the respondents.
• It was argued that the offended person did not have to live with those accused of violence at the time of the crime. In this regard, the Supreme Court's decision in Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja, [(2021) 1 SCC 414] was cited, in which the phrase 'lives or at any stage has lived', as found in Section 2 (s) of the D.V. Act, was interpreted to mean a household that the aggrieved person shared with the respondents at the time of filing the D.V. Act application, or a household

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS

• The respondent's counsel defended the impugned judgments of the High Court and the First Appellate Court, arguing that they were reasonable and thus did not require intervention by the Supreme Court.
• The aggrieved person was not in a domestic relationship with the respondents, according to the Counsel. It was claimed that the aggrieved person lived in Roorkee after her marriage and not with the respondents. The same was stated in the application filed with the Magistrate under the D.V. Act. The aggrieved individual did not live with the respondents even after her husband died. The aggrieved person was working as a teacher and there was no evidence to establish that she had taken leave from her job for thirteen days following the death of her husband.
• It was argued that there could not be a 'domestic relationship' between the parties on the basis of which remedy could be sought under the D.V. Act. That any violence asserted under the D.V. Act must always be in relation to a 'domestic relationship,' and that the continuation of a domestic relationship would be a precondition to invoke Section 12 of the D.V. Act and granting reliefs foreseen under the D.V. Act. Finally, it was argued that the procedures under the D.V. Act were ill-motivated, misconceived, and started solely to harass the respondents.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

• A domestic relationship is a relationship between two people who live or have lived together in a shared household at some point in the past. Consanguinity, marriage, or a partnership in the type of a marriage, adoption, or family members living together as a joint family are all possibilities. As a result, any woman in a domestic relationship has the right to live in a shared household, regardless of whether she has any right, title, or beneficial interest in it. A daughter, sister, wife, mother, grandmother, or great grandmother, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law, or any woman in a marriage-like relationship, an adopted daughter, or any member of a joint family has this right.
• If a woman in a domestic partnership wants to enforce her right to live in a shared household, she can do so under Section 17(1) of the D.V. Act, regardless of whether she has lived there before or not. If the respondent(s) resist or restrict her right to remain in a shared household, she becomes an aggrieved person who cannot be evicted if she has already been living there, or excluded from the shared household or any part of it if she is not already resident there. In other words, the phrase "right to reside in the shared home" does not refer to simply actual residence; a woman in a domestic partnership can assert her right to reside in the shared household regardless of actual domicile. As a result, even though she has not lived in the common household, she cannot be excluded. In addition to the orders that can be granted under the D.V. Act, any woman in a domestic partnership can enforce her right to reside in a shared household, regardless of whether she has any right, title, or beneficial interest in it.

CONCLUSION

• It was held that it is not mandatory for the aggrieved person, when she is related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family, to actually reside with those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled at the time of commission of domestic violence. If a woman has the right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the D.V. Act and such a woman becomes an aggrieved person or victim of domestic violence, she can seek reliefs under the provisions of D.V. Act including enforcement of her right to live in a shared household.
• It was held that when a person is related by consanguinity, marriage or a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or family members living together as a joint family, it is not necessary for the aggrieved person to actually reside with the persons against whom the allegations have been levelled at the time of the commission of domestic violence. If a woman has the right to live in a shared household under Section 17 of the D.V. Act and becomes a victim of domestic abuse, she can seek redress under the D.V. Act's provisions, including enforcement of her right to live in a shared household.
• It was decided that there must be an ongoing domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom relief is sought in the case of domestic violence allegations. However, a domestic connection does not have to exist at the moment an aggrieved person files an application. In other words, even if an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household at the time of filing an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, but has lived in one or had the right to live in one and has been subjected to domestic violence or will be subjected to domestic violence as a result of the domestic relationship, the aggrieved person is still file an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.
• Consequently, the judgment passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand and the Additional Sessions Judge, were set aside and the order passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate-I in wasaffirmed.

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement