Indian history has been a testimony in itself to the persistence of male domination which has served as an oxygen to patriarchy, from the time it was not even an identified concept. Since time immemorial male domination has been a self – fulfilling principle built on misogyny and brutalization of women with domestic violence being a by-product. However, patriarchy has faced stern challenge due to education, awareness and flourishing movements of women empowerment. but it always returns in a new glass because the societal inequalities have not been eradicated yet. The enactment of Domestic Violence Act,2005 has served a great purpose in protecting women from such domestic abuses primarily faced due to parochial and patriarchal mindset where causing distress to woman is considered as a way to set her straight. On the similar lines the abuse of the process of law at the hands of the women has also been an open secret. There is a barrage of malafide litigations against innocent men who are the victim of the system, so to say. The courts have often found and observed that in a matrimonial discord neither the husband nor the wife is lily white and both parties tries to extort laws to cause misery to the other. In a recent judgment of Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja 2020 SCC 841 (Ahuja) Hon’ble Supreme Court was faced with one such dilemma, where ultimately the court inched towards the wife, in order to meet the view and objective behind the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, being a special and welfare legislation, enacted for the protection of woman inter alia from being rendered homeless at the hands of her abusive husband or in laws.
FLASHBACK
The recent 3 judge bench judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Ahuja, supra has changed and enlarged the ambit of the existing definition of “shared household” as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and has provided a much broad interpretation to the said definition. The earlier 2 judge bench of the Supreme Court in S.R Batra vs Taruna Batra 2007 3 SCC 169, had delved upon the definition of shared household and had provided an interpretation which held the field since 2007. The subsequent 3 judge bench judgment extensively analyses the meaning and ambit of the definition as provided by an earlier 2 judge bench of Supreme court in S,R Batra and construed it to be narrow in its ambit and not in tandem with the objective behind the 2005 legislation. The Court in its judgment has also elaborated upon the reason, object and need behind the enactment of the 2005 legislation being a special law for the protection of the women. The Court has also acknowledged that domestic violence cases are on rise and
The rationale adopted by the Supreme Court in present case is that the definition of “shared household” provided in Section 2 (s) of the Act is an exhaustive definition using the expression “means and includes”.
The Court expounded upon the definition and held that:-
“………From the above definition, following is clear:- (i) it is not requirement of law that aggrieved person may either own the premises jointly or singly or by tenanting it jointly or singly; (ii) 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 (iii) the shared household may either be owned or tenanted by the respondent singly or jointly.”
In simpler words. earlier the daughter in law could be kicked out at any point in time as per the whims and fancies of her in laws, provided the house is not owned by her husband but by her in laws who have no obligations to maintain her during the lifetime of her husband. Questions were raised on the 2007 judgment being ambiguous. The present judgment over turns the verdict in S.R Batra.
FACTS
Essentially the genesis of the present case was a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction sought by the father in law against his daughter in law to remove herself from property which was owned by him.
The son of the appellant was married to Sneha, they were residing on the first floor of the house owned by the father of the husband. Due to certain discord between the husband and wife, the husband started living in the guest room on the ground floor of the house and initiated divorce proceedings against the wife. Subsequently, wife filed an application under Section 12 of the 2005 Act, against her in laws, wherein Ld. CMM was pleased to grant an interim order in her favour thereby restraining the Respondents to not alienate the alleged “shared household” and not to dispossess the wife and children without the order of a competent court. Thereafter, the father In law who owned the house filed a suit injunction to restrain the daughter in law to live in the house. The trial court passed a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction in the favour of the father in law. However, the High Court of Delhi in an appeal preferred by the daughter in law set aside the decree and after framing certain questions remanded the matter back to be adjudicated by the Trial Court afresh. The father in law being aggrieved with the decision of the high court preferred the appeal to the Supreme Court which formed the boon of the interpretation of term “shared household” as defined in Section 2 (s) of the 2005 Act. The most crucial question that fell for adjudication before the apex court was “Whether definition of shared household under Section 2(s) of the 2005 Act has to be read to mean that shared household can only be that household which is household of joint family or a household in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share?
In other words whether the woman who is the victim of domestic violence has the right to reside in the premises she had lived, even if the husband does not have any right or interest in the said property/premises. The answer is affirmative, if the premises qualifies to be a shared household under the 2005 Act.
RATIO
The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Ahuja came as relief and respite to many struggling women and provided them with an armory. Supreme Court while interpreting the definition of “shared household” as provided in 2(s) of the 2005, Act traced back to a three Judge bench judgment of Supreme Court in Bharat Coop. Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. Vs. Coop. Bank Employees Union, (2007) 4 SCC 685 , which explained the expression “means and include”, the words that also find place in Section 2 (s) of the 2005 Act. The Court had held in Bharat Coop. that “the use of word “means” followed by the word “includes” in Section 2 (bb) of the Industrial Development Act is clearly indicative of the legislative intent to make the definition exhaustive and it would cover only those banking companies which fall within the purview of the definition and no other”. The Court in the present case further dissected Section 2 (s) and went on to hold that the word “include” in the context of aforesaid section shall not only mean a household where aggrieved lived at any stage in a domestic relationship whether singly or with respondent but shall also include such a household either tenanted or owned either jointly by aggrieved person and husband or which may belong to the joint family of which the husband is a member, irrespective of whether the husband or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.
The Court while overruling the judgment in S.R Batra also distinguished it on several counts and held the expression “at any stage has lived” is inserted for the protection of the woman i.e., on the date when the application is filed she was excluded from the possession of the house or was temporarily absent. It was never the legislative intent to include all the houses of the relatives of the husband where the aggrieved person had lived. The real test to identify whether a premises can be called shared household or not is whether the parties intended to treat the said premises as shared household or not? If the answer is Yes! and wife claims the relief of residence as provided under Section 19 of the 2005 Act then it shall be incumbent upon Court to grant such relief after considering the facts of the case and balancing the interest of the parties.
The Court has interestingly quoted Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji in B.R. Mehta Vs. Atma Devi and Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 183, where the Hon’ble Judge had observed that “right of occupation in matrimonial home which is granted under Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967 in England are not granted in India though it may be that with the change of situation and complex problems arising, it is high time to give the wife or the spouse a right of occupation”. This observation came way back in 1987 which only emphasised the need for enactment of 2005 legislation.
AFTERMATH
The Judgement comes as a step to secure social justice in a country where women often succumb to societal pressures and get stuck in the vicious cycle of violence being perpetrated against her.. The mere thought that women of our country has to suffer in silence is extremely troubling and in such times a judgment like Satish Chandra Ahuja provides some glittering hope. It is the Ahuja judgment which shall come to the rescue of many and contribute in breaking the chains of injustice that have gripped the society for years. It provides some sense of security to a woman who comes to her matrimonial home after leaving behind her home. However, there is a downside to the judgment as well if no applied correctly, it is silent on the hardships and harassment faced by the elderly in laws in cases where it is the daughter in law who is abusive, who contorts such welfare laws and misuses them to her advantage. The courts while passing order based on the Ahuja judgement cannot loose sight of such an adverse possibility and needs to carefully examine whether the claims of the wife are bona fide or not. The court in the Ahuja judgement also touched upon a very crucial nerve and reiterated that though the civil and criminal proceedings being independent of each other can progress on parallel lines but once a relief has been granted buy a Magistrate under the DV Act, the Civil court ought to take into consideration such an order while passing its own order and vice versa. Hence, the underlying tenet of the judgment which cannot be missed is balancing the rights of the parties which is of paramount importance whenever a court grants relief either under Section 12 of DV Act or in a civil proceeding.
The Court has interestingly quoted Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji in B.R. Mehta Vs. Atma Devi and Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 183, where the Hon’ble Judge had observed that “right of occupation in matrimonial home which is granted under Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967 in England are not granted in India though it may be that with the change of situation and complex problems arising, it is high time to give the wife or the spouse a right of occupation”. This observation came way back in 1987 which only emphasised the need for enactment of 2005 legislation.