In this post we will discuss about the concept of shared household which states that every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title, or beneficial interest in the same.
Shared Household in Domestic Violence Act
A shared household as given under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005is defined in Section 2 (s), which precisely states that “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both together or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the 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.[1]
As the definition lacks precision and does not specify the different aspects of the societal relationships, courts have enunciated various instances about the loose ends that have been left in the definition.
One of the most promulgated definition for a shared household was given by the 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ in the case of SR Batra v. Taruna Batra,[2] which states that “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 concept of Shared Household has been a questioned innumerable time in the Court with its question to the ownership of the house, legal relationships, live-in relations, etc.; in every case, the Court has had a very stable concurrence to the scenario, a legally valid connection with the owner of the house in the same vicinity is considered as a shared household. This has been further elaborated under Section 17(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005as-.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title, or beneficial interest in the same.[3]
Though the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been a milestone in achieving the rights which have been hampered due to the constant misogyny in the society by protecting women from any demonizing acts against them. The Act has gone to the elaborative measures of including speculative torture such as mental harassment into its casing.
ALSO READ- PROCEDURE IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES IN TRICITY
Facts
The instant case Malini Israni vs. Arjun Israni[4]is an appeal under sec 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which had been filed Magistrate initially by the aggrieved under Section 12 of the Act.
Section 29 reads as-.
Appeal. —There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later.[5]
In the following case, the Appellant had filed an application to the Metropolitan Magistrate filing for a suit for domestic violence. The question of law was whether the Appellant was in a shared household with the respondent and seeking various reliefs under provisions of Act.
The Appellant is aggrieved with the said order and has assailed the same on various grounds, which can be summarized as under:
- i) That the impugned order passed by Ld Trial Court is bad in law;
- ii) That Ld Trial Court erred in law by taking the view that there is no ‘shared household’ or ‘domestic relationship’ between the parties;
iii) That the DIR itself states that the respondents stay in the same premises as the Appellant instead, there is ample material on record to prove that respondents are in ‘shared household’ and ‘domestic relationship’ with Appellant;
- iv) That at the stage of summoning, only prima facie material is required, and there are sufficient averments in the complaint of Appellant to make out a case for the summoning of respondents;
- v) That husband of Appellant and respondents in collusion with each other are attempting to throw out the Appellant from the matrimonial house;
- vi) That Appellant and respondents stay as members of a joint family in the matrimonial house;
vii) That respondents share common resources and facilities such as lift, staircase, water supply, electricity supply, air conditioning, gas pipeline, and access to the entire house is controlled by them.[6]
The Appellant had filed a complaint of Domestic Violence by her extended family living in the same vicinity. Still, different floors, the main question that came into existence, was whether this instant case comes into a typical household’s purview. The fact that it was the second marriage of both the respondent and Appellant is nonexistent.
Though the definition u/s 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act speaks of living together at any point of time in a shared household, it covers within its ambit only those cases where domestic relationships continued. In said situation, if the parties have lived together at any point of time in a shared household, the person can be the respondent. Still, suppose the relationship does not continue and has come to an end because parties are shifting out of the shared household and setting at some other place. In that case, such members can neither sue as an aggrieved person nor can be sued as respondent under the Domestic Violence Act.
ALSO READ- ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT DIVORCE IN INDIA
The purpose of the Act gives remedy to the aggrieved person against domestic violence. Domestic violence can take place only when one is living in a shared household with the respondents. The Act of abuse, emotional or economic, physical or sexual, verbal or non-verbal, if committed, when one is living in the same shared household constitutes domestic violence. However, such acts of violence can be executed even otherwise also when one is living separately. When such acts of violence occur when one is living separately, these may be punishable under different IPC provisions or other Penal Laws. Still, they cannot be covered under the Domestic Violence Act. Domestic violence is committed when parties are in a domestic relationship, sharing the same household and sharing all the household goods with an opportunity to commit violence.
A perusal of this provision clarifies that a domestic relationship arises in respect of an aggrieved person if the aggrieved person had lived together with the respondent in a shared household. This living together can be either soon before the filing of petition or “at any point of time.” The problem arises with the meaning of the phrase “at any point of time”. Does that mean that living together at any stage in the past would give a person the right to become an aggrieved person to claim a domestic relationship? I consider that “at any point of time” under the Act only means where an aggrieved person has been continuously living in the shared household as a matter of right. Still, for some reason, the aggrieved person has to leave the house temporarily, and when she returns, she is not allowed to enjoy her right to live in the property.
It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was not staying with the respondent when the issues arose between the respondent and the parents of the petitioner. However, where the living together has been given up, and a separate household is established, and belongings are removed, the domestic relationship comes to an end. An association of being relative to each other survives. Since the petitioner has settled abroad after marriage with her husband and living in her matrimonial home, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be made a party in the case filed under the Domestic Violence Act.
The definition of shared household given under Section 2(s), as noticed above, beginning with the expression “shared household means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes the section uses both the expressions “means and includes”. A Three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Bharat Coop. Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. Vs. Coop. Bank Employees Union,[7] needed to consider Section 2(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which section used both the words “means and includes”.
ALSO READ- SETTLEMENT IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH
Judgement Cited
In the case of the Appellant, the counsel had argued by the following lines.
Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja,[8]in which it was stated that the defendant had filed for a case of domestic violence by her in-laws in their acquired property, it was said that Sections 17 and 19 of the Act, 2005 do not contemplate a proprietary or ownership right in the shared household for the aggrieved person. Shri Jauhar further submits that her claim for alternate accommodation can be made qua husband and not qua the father-in-law because her relationship in the household emanates according to marriage, and father cannot be under a statutory obligation to provide for the residence and maintenance of daughter-in-law.
Ajay Kumar Vs Lata Alias Sharuti&Ors[9],In which it was stated that “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the 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;
Contrary to the above-stated cases, the Court decided that the person should live in the same household for the following matter to be filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The household has been defined as a group of persons who typically live together and take their meals from a common kitchen unless the exigencies of work prevent any of them from doing so in Dr. V.K. Vijayalekshmi Amma vs Bindu V. [10]In the present case, it was stated by the Court that the Appellant lives on a different floor and has a separate kitchen and household, and therefore it, not a shared household. It was expressly stated that the Appellant had always stayed on a different floor. Therefore, by the definition of Shared household, the judgment by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is valid.
The domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent must be present and alive at the time when a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act is filed. If this relationship is not alive on the date when a complaint is filed, the domestic relationship cannot be said to be there. Reliance placed on Harbans Lal Malik vs. Payal Malik[11], wherein, the Hon’ble High Court further held as under:
“Thus, in order to constitute a family and domestic relationship it is necessary that the persons who constitute domestic relationship must be living together in the same house under one head. If they are living separate then they are not a family but they are relatives related by blood or consanguinity to each other. Where parents live separate from their son like any other relative, the family of son cannot include his parents. The parents can be included in the family of son only when they are dependent upon the son and/or are living along with the son in the same house. But when they are not dependent upon the son and they are living separate, the parents shall constitute a separate family and son, his wife and children shall constitute a separate family. There can be no domestic relationship of the wife of son with the parents when the parents are not living along with the son and there can be no domestic relationship of a wife with the parents of her husband when son along with the wife is living abroad.”
Findings of the Court
The trial Court has established that the present case is not a bad law in the current instance, and the judgment by the Metropolitan Magistrate is valid.
In the judgment citing the cases mentioned above, it has been proven that there is no standard household in the case. Therefore, the case does not lie under the ambit of Domestic Violence; however, it has not been ignored that there has been violence. Adequate charges have been filed under the Indian Penal Code under Sec 498A/406, which has already been discharged.
It has been expressly stating in the judgment that the domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent must be present and alive at the time when a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act is filed. If this relationship is not alive on the date when complaint is filed, the domestic relationship cannot be said to be there. Also, stating in the following case, it has been noted that households of parties being separate independent units (within the same compound) would not constitute a shared household. Mere sharing of common facilities like lift, staircases, gas pipeline would not bring the parties (living as separate independent family units) within the ambit of ‘shared household’ as sharing of such facilities is a common phenomenon where different families (e.g., in housing societies) stay in similar compound as separate independent households.
Therefore, stating these facts, the Court had dismissed on the grounds of finding no illegality or infirmity.
Conclusion
Before the Act, only the relationship of a wife was covered under cruelty. Other cases were tried in criminal Court. The scope of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is vast. It covers all nuances of the society, and all relationships are considered in the Act, which was a positive step to developing a safer community for women.
A bench of justices S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju noted that the definition of the shared household in the Act and stated, “We have to give the Act an interpretation which is sensible and does not lead to chaos in society,” Section 17(1) of the Act says that every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in a shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in it.” Drawing this conclusion in the present case, it is seen that the Rule of law and justiciability has decided the issue.
Though the Act requires a more elaborative definition of relationships and trials, it is an overall measure to aid women in society by speeding justice and cognizance of the acts.
ALSO READ- DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FAQ CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI
This post is written by Tanya Gorshi
Rest, get in touch with the best/top/expert Domestic Violence Lawyer/Advocate for your case related free legal advice practicing in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali.
For more info on subject, dial 99888-17966
[1]Protection of women against Domestic Violence, 2005, § 2 Act No. 43 of 2006 (India).
[2](2007) 3 SCC 169
[3]Protection of women against Domestic Violence, 2005,§17 Act No. 43 of 2006 (India).
[4]CT Cases No. 2885/2020
[5]Protection of women against Domestic Violence, 2005,§29 Act No. 43 of 2006 (India).
[6]Malini Israni vs. Arjun Israni, CT Cases No. 2885/2020
[7](2007) 4 SCC 685
[8](JT 2020 (10) SC 244)
[9](2019) 15 SCC 352)
[10] (CRL.M.C.No. 2225 OF 2009).
[11] (2010 (3) CC cases (HC) 543)
