The Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, ruling that a separated woman can claim residency in a household of the husband`s parents. This judgment overturns the Supreme Court`s precedent as set in SR Batra vs Taruna Batra and will have indelible implications for the jurisprudence relating to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (the “Act”). Lord, I have read the topic published by you. Domestic relations, the common home, etc. The suggestions are very helpful. “58. It should be noted that the law does not confer title or property rights on the injured party, as most people misunderstand, but merely guarantees a right of residence in the common household. Article 17 § 2 specifies that the injured person may be expelled from the joint home, but only in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. Parliament has taken care to calibrate and balance the interests of the respondent`s family members and has mitigated their seriousness by expressly providing, subject to section 19(1), that, when deciding on an application favoured by the injured party, the court is not free to make orders ordering the removal of a female family member from the common household.
In addition, under Article 19(1)(f), the court may order the defendant to provide the injured party with the same level of housing as that enjoyed in the same household or to pay rent if circumstances so require10. Will the right to live in a common household, conferred by recent judgment and law, apply only to separated wives/daughters-in-law? In particular, the Supreme Court made a point as to whether the interpretation and definition of a common household under section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 is to be understood to mean that a “joint household” within the meaning of the above definition is only one that is either jointly owned, either the one who is the one who is jointly detained or the one in which the husband of the injured party has a share. and, in this sense, whether the Supreme Court rejected the definition of the common budget in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra.5 Simply put, a shared household is a household in which a separated woman has lived in a domestic relationship at some point. Such a household may be owned or rented jointly between the ex-wife and her husband. It also includes a household owned or rented by one of the couples arguing. A joint household may belong to the joint family to which the husband belongs, whether or not the husband or former wife has rights, title or shares in that household. The Supreme Court has had the opportunity to consider and respond to the various legal issues raised in this case, but the issue of the competing rights of daughter-in-law and parents with respect to the marital home is being discussed here. With respect to the right to reside in a matrimonial home, the Supreme Court cited the formulations of J. Sabyasachi Mukherji in B.R.
Mehta v. Atma Ram and Ors.6 where the Court held that in India there is no right to employment in a matrimonial home, unlike England, where such rights are provided for by the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967 (repealed by the Matrimonial Housing Act 1983). Justice Sabyasachi Mukherji expected and emphasized that such rights would be respected in India. This need was finally met by the enactment of the DV Act 2005 which, among other facilitations, created a right for women to reside in their marital home, regardless of their statutory rights or interests in them. Please send me a copy of the judgment concerning family relations, joint household, etc. The court held that orders made by the criminal court (in DV proceedings) are relevant within the meaning of section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act and can be deported and invoked by the civil court, but any interim or final order made by the criminal court in relation to the right of residence would not constitute an embargo for the civil court to pursue the case and to decide and decide on the issue of expulsion. Prior to this clarification by the Supreme Court, the situation seemed uncertain that the lower courts were reluctant to issue an eviction injunction/order in a civil injunction/eviction action when informed of the ongoing domestic violence proceedings against the complainant. The ownership of the house may be in the name of the mother-in-law or father-in-law, but this does not affect the right of a daughter-in-law to claim residence in such a house.
The definition of a shared household emphasizes the establishment of a domestic relationship, and the inquiry into the ownership of the said house was deemed unnecessary by the Honourable Supreme Court. What is the Supreme Court`s view of the right of an ex-wife to live in a common household? Right to live in a common household: According to the definition: “Notwithstanding what is contained in any other law currently in force, every woman in a domestic relationship has the right to live in the same household, whether or not she has a title of economic interest in the same household. The injured party may not be expelled or excluded by the defendant from the joint household or part of it, except in accordance with the procedure established by law. “Similarly, a woman who has already left the common home cannot force access simply because she is the wife or daughter-in-law of that home. A person may forcibly prevent them from entering the premises, unless they are provided with a court order to that effect. Preventing someone from entering the premises is not an eviction. The right of the ex-wife to reside in a joint household has been expanded by the recent Supreme Court decision. In the most recent judgment, it was decided that a separated woman has the right to residence in a common household, whether or not she has a legal interest in doing so.
This includes the right to live in a common household of the husband`s parents. The Supreme Court clarifies the legal position on the definition of “shared household” under the Domestic Violence Act. PTI file The right of residence in a joint household may be invoked against the husband as well as the husband`s mother-in-law, father-in-law and/or any other relative if the aggrieved wife had a domestic relationship with these persons. (ii) the injured wife must live or have lived at some time in the household concerned. In cases where she was excluded from the premises or temporarily absent, such considerations would not deny her the protection provided by law. There is a lot of confusion among our brothers when it comes to concepts such as the domestic relationship, the common household, and the marital home. Especially for those who are faced with cases under the law on domestic violence and the woman seeks access to her parents` home, etc. In this article, I try to clarify the different terms. Would a common household include all the places where the separated woman lives or has lived? Can the right of residence in a common household be invoked only against the husband with whom the former wife had a domestic relationship? According to the Supreme Court`s decision in the Taruna Batra case, the injured woman`s right of residence in a joint household was limited to immovable property owned by her husband or to joint family property in which the husband was a member or in which he held an interest. It was therefore decided that the ex-wife could not claim the right to live in a house owned by her mother-in-law or father-in-law.