LexSATISH CHANDER AHUJA versus SNEHA AHUJA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 189 SATISH CHANDER AHUJA v. SNEHA AHUJA (Civil Appeal No.3483 of 2020) OCTOBER 15, 2020 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: ss.12, 19 – In a complaint filed under s.12 of Act, 2005, an interim order was passed in favour of complainant directing the respondent arrayed in the complaint i.e. husband not to dispossess the complainant without orders of a competent court – Suit filed by father-in-law thereafter praying for a mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of suit property against the complainant- defendant – Maintainability of – Held: Suit filed in civil court for mandatory and permanent injunction was fully maintainable – The issues raised by the plaintiff as well as by the defendant claiming a right under s.19 were to be addressed and decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties in the suit. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: s.26 – Relief in suit or legal proceedings – As per s.26, any relief available under ss.18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act, 2005 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court, family court or a criminal court being the aggrieved person – In a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction filed by the appellant (father-in-law) where respondent (daughter-in-law) has pleaded and claimed that the suit property is shared household and she has right to live and it was on that ground she was resisting the suit for mandatory injunction, the question that whether the suit property is a shared household or not becomes relevant and necessary and the said issue cannot be skipped on the ground that application under D.V. Act is pending – In the regular suit, which was filed by the appellant, plea of defendant that suit property is her shared household and she has right to residence could have been very well gone into by virtue of s.26 of Act, 2005. [2020] 12 S.C.R. 189 189 A B C D E F G H 190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 12 S.C.R. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: s.19 – Pendency of proceedings under the Act, 2005 or any order interim or final, passed u/s.19 regarding right of residence is not an embargo for initiating/continuing any civil proceedings, which relate to subject matter of order interim or final passed in proceedings under the Act. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: s.2(s) – Shared household – Definition of – Held: The definition of shared household in s.2(s) is an exhaustive definition – s.2(s) uses both the expressions “means and includes” – The first part of definition begins with expression “means” which is undoubtedly an exhaustive definition and second part of definition, which begins with word “includes” is explanatory of what was meant by the definition – The use of both the expressions “means and includes” in s.2(s), 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. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: s.2(s) – Expression “where the person aggrieved has lived or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship” – Meaning of – The words “lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship” 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. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: s.2(s) – Interpretation of – It is not 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; and the shared household may either be owned or tenanted by the respondent singly or jointly. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: s.2(q) – Who can be respondent – To treat a person as “respondent” for purposes of s.2(q), it has to be proved that person arrayed as respondent has committed an act of domestic violence on the aggrieved person – For grant of any relief to the defendant or for A B C D E F G H 191 successful resisting the suit of the plaintiff, necessary conditions for grant of relief as prescribed under the Act, 2005 has to b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.