MANMOHAN ATTAVAR versus NEELAM MANMOHAN ATTAVAR

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 14-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2017) 6 S.C.R. 356 
MANMOHAN ATTAVAR 
v. 
NEELAM MANMOHAN ATTAVAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 2500 of2017) 
. B 
JULY 14,2017 
[R. F. NARIMAN AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.) 
Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 -
ss. 2(/), 2(s), 17 and 19 - Residence orders - Right to reside in a 
C 
shared household - Respondent-lady aged 62 years claiming to be 
wife/companion of appellant aged 80 years - interim order passed 
by the High Court permitting the lady to occupy the premises 
belonging to the appellant, Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable 
- 'Domestic relationship' as defined u/s. 2(/) refers to two persons 
who have lived together in a 'shared household' - On facts, 
D 
respondent never stayed with the appellant in the premises in which 
she was directed to be inducted - In order for the respondent to 
succeed, it was necessary that the two parties had lived in a domestic 
relationship in the household - It is not as if the respondent has 
been subsequently excluded from the enjoyment of the property or 
· E 
thrown out by the appellant in an alleged relationship which goes 
back 20 years - They fell apart even as per the respondent more 
than 7 years ago - Wife of the appellant was alive at that time -
Thus, the interim order set aside - Furthermore, there was no reason 
for the proceedings to be withdrawn from appellate court to High 
Court itself 
F 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A reading of the sections 17 and 19 of the 
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 show 
that it creates an entitlement in favour of the woman of the right 
of residence under the "shared household" irrespective of her 
G having any legal interests in the same. The direction, inter alia, 
can include an order restraining dispossession or a direction to 
remove himself on being satisfied that domestic violence had 
taken place. [Para 15) [363-C] 
H 
356 
MANMOHAN ATTAVAR v. NEELAM MANMOHAN ATTAVAR 
357 
1.2 The facts of the instant case are that the respondent A 
has never stayed with the appellant in the premises in which she 
B 
has been directed to be inducted. This is an admitted position 
even in answer to a court query by the respondent during the 
course of hearing. The "domestic relationship" as defined under 
Section 2 (t) refers to two persons who have lived together in a 
"shared household". A "shared household" has been defined 
under Section 2(s) of the D.V. Act. In order for the respondent to 
succeed, it was necessary that the two parties had lived in a 
domestic relationship in the household. However, the parties 
never lived together in the property in question. It is not as if the 
respondent has been subsequently excluded from the enjoyment C 
of the property or thrown out by the appellant in an alleged 
relationship which goes back 20 years. They fell apart even as 
per the respondent more than 7 years ago. Till 22.2.2010 even 
the wife of the appellant was alive. For the purpose of record that 
as per the appellant, he is a Christian and thus, there could be no 
D 
question of visiting any temple and marrying the respondent by 
applying "kumkum", and that too when the wife of the appellant 
was alive. In view thereof, the nature of the ex-parte order passed 
on 19.9.2016 permitting the respondent to occupy the premises 
of the appellant cannot be sustained and is set aside. [Paras 17, 
18) [364-A-D) 
1.3 A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Single 
Judge found the remedy sought for by the respondent to be 
"misconceived". However, the Judge found it appropriate to treat 
the petition as one u/s. 407 Cr.P.C. The Single Judge expressed 
E 
the view that the appellate court ought to have called upon the 
F 
respondent to argue the appeal rather than spend time on interim 
reliefs, which was not maintainable in the face of the earlier order 
resulting in a predictable order. The said observations cannot be 
appreciated when the respondent herself sought once again to 
press for interim relief and applications to adduce additional 
evidence. The ASJ can hardly be faulted on this account. The G 
Single Judge also gave latitude to the respondent on account of 
her appearing in person whereby she may not have documented 
the bits and pieces of her past with the intention of initiating the 
H 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A proceedings which she was pursuing. In the view thereof, the 
appeal was withdrawn to the High Court itself. [Paras 19, 20) 
(364-F-H ; 365-A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.