SC order calls for change in 145;shared household146; definition

The concept of shared household as defined in the Domestic Violence Act may have to be expanded in view of a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, which noted that it has been drafted in a 8220;clumsy8221; manner.

The concept of shared household as defined in the Domestic Violence Act may have to be expanded in view of a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, which noted that it has been drafted in a 8220;clumsy8221; manner.

In a judgment on the recently notified Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, a two-member Bench of the apex court expressed that Section 2s of the Act, which gives right of residence to a married woman in a shared household, is not 8220;properly worded and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting.8221; But at the same time, the Judges held, 8220;8230;we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society.8221;

Significantly, the Bench of Justices SB Sinha and Markandeya Katju also said, 8220;It is only the legislature which can create a law and not the court. The courts do not legislate and whatever maybe the personal view of a judge, he cannot create or amend any law and he must maintain judicial restraint.8221;

The court explained, 8220;8230;as regards Section 171 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.8221;

Aggrieved by an earlier order of the Delhi High Court on a petition by Taruna Batra, wife of Amit Batra, his parents 8212; SR Batra and his wife 8212; appealed in the Supreme Court.

Elaborating on the shared household concept, it further said, 8220;The property 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 he is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant number two, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a shared household.8221;

Amit Batra had filed a divorce petition against his wife and as a counter measure the wife filed a case under Sections 406 criminal breach of trust, 498A harassment for dowry, 506 criminal intimidation and 34 common intention under Indian Penal Code. Following which, her in-laws, husband Amit and her married sister-in-law were arrested.

Story continues below this ad

Amit later shifted to his parents8217; residence and she also shifted to the same place and filed an application for injunction, which was dismissed by the trial court, but the High Court reversed the order of the trial court.

The apex court, however, disagreed with the HC and said, 8220;In our opinion, the above observation is merely an expression of hope and it does not lay down any law.8221;

Also while rejecting the contention of the wife8217;s counsel that in view of the Act, his client cannot be dispossessed from the second floor of the property in question at Ashok Vihar in the Capital, Justice Katju who wrote the judgment added, 8220;We are of the opinion that the house in question cannot be said to be a shared household within the meaning of Section 2s of the Act.8221;