S.R. Batra And Anr vs Smt.

Taruna Batra on 15 December,

2006(13) SC 652

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court dated
17.1.2005 in C.M.M. No. 1367 of 2004 and C.MM. No. 1420 of 2004. The facts of the case are
that respondent Smt. Taruna Batra was married to Amit Batra, son of the appellants, on
14.4.2000. After the marriage respondent Taruna Batra started living with her husband Amit
Batra in the house of the appellant no.2 in the second floor. It is not disputed that the said house
which is at B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi belongs to the appellant no.2 and not to her son
Amit Batra.

Amit Batra filed a divorce petition against his wife Taruna Batra, and it is alleged that as a
counter blast to the divorce petition Smt. Taruna Batra filed an F.I.R. under Sections
406/498A/506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and got her father-in-law, mother-in-law, her
husband and married sister-in-law arrested by the police and they were granted bail only after
three days.

It is admitted that Smt. Taruna Batra had shifted to her parent's residence because of the dispute
with her husband. She alleged that later on when she tried to enter the house of the appellant no.2
which is at property No. B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi she found the main entrance locked
and hence she filed Suit No. 87/2003 for a mandatory injunction to enable her to enter the house.
The case of the appellants was that before any order could be passed by the trial Judge on the suit
filed by their daughter-in- law, Smt. Taruna Batra, along with her parents forcibly broke open the
locks of the house at Ashok Vihar belonging to appellant No. 2, the mother- in-law of Smt.
Taruna Batra. The appellants alleged that they have been terrorized by their daughter-in-law and
for some time they had to stay in their office.

It is stated by the appellants that their son Amit Batra, husband of the respondent, had shifted to
his own flat at Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad before the above litigation between the parties had
started.

The learned trial Judge decided both the applications for temporary injunction filed in suit
no.87/2003 by the parties by his order on 4.3.2003. He held that the petitioner was in possession
of the second floor of the property and he granted a temporary injunction restraining the
appellants from interfering with the possession of Smt. Taruna Batra, respondent herein.

Against the aforesaid order the appellants filed an appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi
who by his order dated 17.9.2004 held that Smt. Taruna Batra was not residing in the second
floor of the premises in question. He also held that her husband Amit Batra was not living in the
suit property and the matrimonial home could not be said to be a place where only wife was
residing. He also held that Smt. Taruna Batra had no right to the properties other than that of her
husband. Hence, he allowed the appeal and dismissed the temporary injunction application.

Aggrieved, Smt. Taruna Batra filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution which was
disposed of by the impugned judgment. Hence, these appeals.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment held that the second floor
of the property in question was the matrimonial home of Smt. Taruna Batra. He further held that
even if her husband Amit Batra had shifted to Ghaziabad that would not make Ghaziabad the
matrimonial home of Smt. Taruna Batra. The Learned Judge was of the view that mere change of
the residence by the husband would not shift the matrimonial home from Ashok Vihar,
particularly when the husband had filed a divorce petition against his wife. On this reasoning, the
learned Judge of the High Court held that Smt. Taruna Batra was entitled to continue to reside in
the second floor of B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi as that is her matrimonial home.

Here, the house in question belongs to the mother-in-law of Smt. Taruna Batra and it does not
belong to her husband Amit Batra. Hence, Smt. Taruna Batra cannot claim any right to live in the
said house.

Appellant No. 2, the mother-in-law of Smt. Taruna Batra has stated that she had taken a loan for
acquiring the house and it is not a joint family property. We see no reason to disbelieve this
statement.

Learned counsel for the respondent then relied upon the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005. He stated that in view of the said Act respondent Smt. Taruna Batra cannot
be dispossessed from the second floor of the property in question.
It may be noticed that the finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge that in fact Smt. Taruna Batra
was not residing in the premises in question is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with
either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Hence, Smt. Taruna Batra cannot claim any
injunction restraining the appellants from dispossessing her from the property in question for the
simple reason that she was not in possession at all of the said property and hence the question of
dispossession does not arise.

Apart from the above, we are of the opinion that the house in question cannot be said to be a
`shared household' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batra has relied upon Sections 17 and 19(1) of
the aforesaid Act, which state:

(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.

(2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part
of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law. While
disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being
satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order--

(a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the
possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has
a legal or equitable interest in the shared household;

(b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household;

(c) restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared
household in which the aggrieved person resides;

(d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared household or
encumbering the same;
(e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the
leave of the Magistrate; or

(f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved
person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances
so require:

Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman".

Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batgra stated that the definition of shared
household includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a
domestic relationship. He contended that since admittedly the respondent had lived in the
property in question in the past, hence the said property is her shared household.

We cannot agree with this submission.

If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife
lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the
husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband's father,
husband's paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews,
nieces etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted,
all these houses of the husband's relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist
in living in the all these houses of her husband's relatives merely because she had stayed with her
husband for some time in those houses in the past. Such a view would lead to chaos and would
be absurd.

It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted.

Learned counsel for the respondent Smt Taruna Batra has relied upon Section 19(1)(f) of the Act
and claimed that she should be given an alternative accommodation. In our opinion, the claim for
alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband's
in-laws or other relatives.
As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to
residence in a shared household, and a `shared household' would only mean the house belonging
to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the
husband is a member. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra
nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband Amit Batra
is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant No. 2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it
cannot be called a `shared household'.

No doubt, the definition of `shared household' in Section 2(s) of the Act is not very happily
worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation
which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society.

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set
aside and the order of Senior Civil Judge dismissing the injunction application of Smt. Taruna
Batra is upheld. No costs.

Contempt Petition (C) No. 38/2006 In view of the judgment given above, the contempt petition
stands dismissed.