Shared household under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

On 15/10/2020, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a civil appeal partly overruled it's earlier judgment delivered in the case of SR Batra vs Taruna Batra and held that, shared household referred to in Section 2(s) is the shared household of aggrieved person where she was living at the time when application was filed or in the recent past had been excluded from the use or she is temporarily absent. 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. The intention of the parties and the nature of living including the nature of household have to be looked into to find out as to whether the parties intended to treat the premises as shared household or not.

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.

In case, the shared household of a woman is a tenanted/allotted/licensed accommodation where tenancy/allotment/license is in the name of husband, father-in-law or any other relative, the Act, 2005 does not operate against the landlord/lessor/licensor in initiating an appropriate proceedings for eviction of the tenant/allottee/licensee qua the shared household. However, in case the proceedings are due to any collusion between the two, the woman, who is living in the shared household has right to resist the proceedings on all grounds which the tenant/lessee/licensee could have taken in the proceedings. The embargo under Section 17(2) of Act, 2005 of not to be evicted or excluded save in accordance with the procedure established by law operates only against the “respondent”, i.e., one who is respondent within the meaning of Section 2(q) of Act, 2005.

(Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja)

(Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, MR Shah)

Comments

Advocates Vs. CAs/CSs/CMAs

This article deals with the exclusive right to practise law and tribunal representation and the principles relating to a Harmonious Construction of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Companies Act, 2013 Introduction The ongoing controversy concerning the right of non-advocate professionals, namely Chartered Accountants(CAs), Company Secretaries(CSs), and Cost and Management Accountants(CMAs), to appear and argue matters before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) raises fundamental questions touching the statutory monopoly over the practice of law in India. This post examines the competing statutory claims under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, applies the doctrine of harmonious construction, and concludes that Section 432 does not, and constitutionally cannot, confer any independent or parallel right to practise law upon non-advocates before tribunals. Background of the Dispute Recently, t...

Requirements for Criminal Liability under Sections 406 and 420 IPC

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Jain v. The State of Gujarat and Another (2025 INSC 614), delivered on May 1, 2025, is a significant exposition on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in cases where allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are deemed to be a misuse of criminal process for civil disputes. The judgment meticulously analyzes the alleged offenses' legal ingredients, the commercial transaction's factual matrix, and the documentary evidence, ultimately concluding that the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process. Factual Background The case arises from a commercial transaction between the appellant, Ashok Kumar Jain, a director of Maayu Import and Export Ltd., a Sri Lankan company, and the second respondent, a proprietor of Ansh Prints, a textile business in Surat, Gujara...

Inter-State Arrests and the Cost of Ignoring Due Process

The Delhi High Court’s judgment authored by Dr. Justice Murlidhar, as he then was, in Sandeep Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), WP (Crl.) 2189/2018, neutral citation: 2019:DHC:6920-DB , is a clear reminder that problems in policing often arise not because the law is unclear, but because basic legal safeguards are ignored. The case shows how easily police action can cross constitutional limits when procedure is treated as a technicality rather than a duty. When a Complaint Turns into Illegal Detention The case arose from an interfaith marriage between two adults who married of their own free will. The woman’s family opposed the marriage, and soon an FIR alleging kidnapping under Section 366 IPC was lodged in Uttar Pradesh. Acting on this, UP Police travelled to Delhi, entered the JNU campus, and took both the husband and wife back to Ghaziabad. None of the basic legal steps was followed. The local Delhi Police were not informed. No proper diary entries were made. The husband was not ...

Legally Sane

Search This Blog