Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja

Supreme Court of India · 15 October 2020 · 3 judges

A shared household under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act need not belong to the husband or his joint family; S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra was held not good law, and the owner's civil suit was remanded for trial.

Facts

The appellant owned a house in New Delhi. His son married the respondent in 1995 and the couple lived on its first floor. After marital discord the son filed for divorce in 2014, and in 2015 the respondent applied under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband and parents-in-law. The Magistrate passed an interim order restraining them from alienating the alleged shared household or dispossessing her without a court's order. The appellant, a senior citizen, then sued her for mandatory and permanent injunction, saying the house was his self-acquired property and her occupation was permissive. She pleaded that it was her shared household, bought with joint family funds. The Trial Court decreed the suit on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The Delhi High Court set aside the decree and remanded the suit, and the owner appealed.

Questions before the Court

Must a shared household under Section 2(s) be a household of the joint family or one in which the husband has a share, and was S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra correctly decided?
Could the Trial Court decree the owner's suit on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC without deciding the daughter-in-law's claim to a right of residence?
What does 'save in accordance with the procedure established by law' in Section 17(2) mean, and is the owner's civil suit maintainable?
What is the effect of an order under Section 19 of the Act, interim or final, on civil proceedings between the parties?

What the Court held

Section 2(s) cannot be read to mean that a shared household must belong to the joint family of which the husband is a member or be one in which the husband has a share. If the woman lived in a domestic relationship in a house belonging to any relative of the husband, it can be her shared household.
S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra did not correctly interpret Section 2(s) and does not lay down the correct law. The shared household is where the woman lived with some permanency when the application was filed, or from which she was recently excluded or is temporarily absent.
Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 gives the woman a right of residence in the shared household whether or not she has any legal interest in it. Section 17(2) contemplates proceedings in a competent court, so an owner's suit for injunction, eviction or possession is maintainable.
The Trial Court should not have decreed the suit on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, as the defendant's claim of a right of residence had to be considered under Section 26. The owner can be treated as a 'respondent' under Section 2(q), but she must plead and prove the conditions for relief.
Pendency of proceedings or an order under Section 19 does not bar civil proceedings. Such an order is relevant under Section 43 of the Evidence Act and is evidence in the civil suit, but does not bind the civil court, which decides on the evidence led. The High Court's remand was upheld.

Why it matters

A three-Judge Bench held that S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra does not lay down correct law and gave Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act a wider reading, so that a house owned by the husband's relatives can be a shared household. It also explained how an owner's civil suit for eviction and a woman's statutory right of residence are to be decided together, and the weight of Magistrate's orders under Section 19 in civil proceedings.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“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 of which husband is a member or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share.”

Ashok Bhushan, J.Page 82 of the judgment

“Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of Act, 2005 grants an entitlement in favour of the woman of the right of residence under the shared household irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same or not.”

Ashok Bhushan, J.Page 62 of the judgment

“Drawing the analogy from the above case, we are of the opinion that the expression “save in accordance with the procedure established by law”, in Section 17(2) of the Act, 2005 contemplates the proceedings in court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, suit for mandatory and permanent injunction/eviction or possession by the owner of the property is maintainable before a Competent Court.”

Ashok Bhushan, J.Page 112 of the judgment

“The pendency of proceedings under Act, 2005 or any order interim or final passed under D.V. Act under Section 19 regarding right of residence is not an embargo for initiating or continuing any civil proceedings, which relate to the subject matter of order interim or final passed in proceedings under D.V. Act, 2005.”

Ashok Bhushan, J.Page 149 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

Overrules S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2006)“is not correct interpretation and the said judgment does not lay down the correct law” (page 64)
Follows Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora (2016)“This Court struck down the word “adult male”. Hence, it is now permissible under definition of Section 2(q) to include females also.” (page 98)

Case and bench

Parties: Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja
Case: Civil Appeal No. 2483 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 1048 of 2020)
Decided: 15 October 2020
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Opinions: Unanimous. Judgment delivered by Ashok Bhushan, J. for the three-Judge Bench.

Questions on this case

3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.