The CV ruled that the right of residence of a married woman, guaranteed by the domestic violence law, will also apply in civil cases.
In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court held Thursday that under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005, a woman has the right to live in her husband’s family home, even if she is separated from them. The CV ruled that the amparo granted by a criminal court, granting the right of residence to a married woman, which is guaranteed by the domestic violence law, can be considered even when a civil case has been filed against her, which seeks her eviction from the matrimonial home.
The Supreme Court was hearing a case brought by a Delhi resident seeking an appeal from a Supreme Court ruling which ruled that his daughter-in-law had the right to live in her in-laws’ home even if the married couple was in the middle. of divorce proceedings.
The supreme court said that the progress of any society depends on its ability to protect and promote the rights of its women. “Guaranteeing equal rights and privileges to women by the Constitution marked the step towards transforming the status of women in this country,” she said.
A bench made up of judges Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah also qualified as nullifying the interpretation of a previous sentence of the definition of “ shared home ” under the Act, and said that the definition was quite exhaustive and had the intention to provide residence to the female victim under the law.
The definition of shared home given in Section 2 (s) cannot be construed to mean that the shared home can only be the home that is the home of the joint family of which the husband is a member or in which the husband of the aggrieved person has a stake. the bank said in its 151-page judgment. He said shared home meant the place where the woman lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship, either individually or together with the husband, and includes the home owned or rented.
However, the higher court said the interim order protecting a woman’s right of residence under the law will not impede the filing of civil cases related to property.
“The processing of proceedings under the (Domestic Violence) Act, or any provisional or final order approved under the DV Act under Section 19 with respect to the right of residence, does not constitute a garnishment to initiate or continue any civil procedure, which is related to the subject of the provisional or final order approved in procedures under the DV Law, ”he said.
The judgment or order of the criminal court granting provisional or definitive reparation under Section 19 of the DV Act is relevant within the meaning of Section 43 of the Evidence Act and can be consulted and examined by the civil court, Held.
A civil court must determine the issues in the proceedings on the basis of the evidence that the parties have presented before it, according to the judgment.
Referring to the facts of the case, the court said that the lawsuit filed in civil court for the eviction of the woman was fully sustainable and the issues raised by her father-in-law, who claims to be the owner of the house, as well as by the woman who claims A right to residence had to be addressed and decided on the basis of evidence.
The high court verdict came in an appeal by Satish Chander Ahuja, a 76-year-old resident of Delhi, against the judgment of a Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court had overturned a trial court order passed in 2019 asking Ahuja’s daughter-in-law to leave its premises. The High Court had also approved several instructions and asked the civil court to decide the claim again.
Ahuja had said that the property belonged to him and that neither his son nor his daughter-in-law had any property rights over it and that led to an order being passed asking the woman to leave the premises. The husband had filed a separate case to obtain a divorce decree against his wife and the woman had filed a criminal complaint under the domestic violence law against the husband, Ahuja and the mother-in-law.
A criminal court had passed an interim order under the Domestic Violence Act not to be dispossessed until new orders were issued. However, the father-in-law filed a civil lawsuit and obtained an eviction decree. The higher court agreed with the higher court’s finding that in all cases, the woman’s husband should be a part of the court of first instance invoking his suo motu powers under the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court of First Instance will then consider whether the appellant had made an unequivocal admission about the defendant’s property rights with respect to the premises of the claim; If you have done so and your only defense to be dispossessed there is your right of residence under the DV Act, then the Court of First Instance, before passing a decree of possession on the premise of the wife of the rights of property, will ensure that, in view of the appellant’s continuing rights under the DV Act, she is provided with alternative accommodation under Section 19 (1) (f) of the DV Act, which will continue to be provided until the subsistence of their marital relationship, the higher court had withheld.
With PTI inputs
.
