[dropcap]I[/dropcap]N 2005, the Parliament of India enacted The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) which recognised domestic violence, for the first time, as a category of abuse. The act gave the women a right to reside in her matrimonial household and guard her against illegal dispossession. A plain reading of the definition of "shared household" under Section 2(s) of the PWDVA indicates that a woman is entitled to her rights in a shared household, irrespective of whether the shared household is in the name of the husband or his relatives..The intention of the legislature to insert an all-encompassing definition of the "shared household" in PWDVA was two-fold. Firstly, the concept of ownership was distinguished from possession to protect women from removal or threats of removal from house in which she has no title. Secondly, it was done keeping in mind the family structure in Indian households, where sons, even after their marriage, continue to live with their parents..However, over the years, the judicial interpretation of the act has led to its dilution. A notorious judgment of the Supreme Court in S.R. Batra vs Taruna Batra, narrowly interpreted 'shared household' which has prevented women from stating their claim, as intended..Narrow Interpretation of Shared Household.The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice MarkandeyKatju, held that a wife is entitled to claim a right to residence only in a shared household, which would only mean the house belonging to, or taken by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, it would not extend to a property which is owned by the in-laws, irrespective of whether it is her matrimonial home or not..Section 2(s) of PWDVA clearly states that a woman has a right to residence in shared household irrespective of whether she has any right, title or interest in it. The Supreme Court by restricting the right to residence only to the cases where the husband owns some property or has some share in it has curtailed the usefulness of the right to the residence itself..PWDVA is an extension of a deeper and profound principle of Women's rights. There is no place for proprietary rights or ownership under PWDVA. However, the Supreme Court, by limiting the definition of shared household, introduced the element of proprietary rights and puts it over women's rights..Further, in deciding the case, the court ventured into hypothetical and imaginary situations and did little to interpret the law based on the concrete facts of the case. It observed that the husband and wife may have lived in dozens of places like with husband's parents, grandparents, uncles, etc. If all these places were to be interpreted as 'shared household', it would lead to a situation of chaos. Based on this specious reasoning, the judgment declares that "any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted". Such a view completely negates the scheme of the act which links the term 'shared household' to the concept of a domestic relationship. What amounts to the shared household under the act can be easily determined by judging each case on its own merit..As the act recognised, in India, it is not uncommon for sons to reside with their parents in a common household. The concept of a nuclear household, though on a rise, is yet to become a norm. Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court fails to acknowledge this reality..A Glimmer of Hope.The Supreme Court's decision has adversely impacted the rights of several women who have been denied the right to reside in their matrimonial homes..However, a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Eveneet Singh vs Prakash Chaudhary & Ors, came as a positive aberration. The Court held that the introduction of the remedy of "right to residence" is a path-breaking step, taken to further the objects of the Act and a restrictive interpretation of the term 'shared household' would be contrary to the scheme and objective of the Act. It held that the concept of ownership is not the single most important factor in deciding if a woman has the right to reside in the shared household: "The definition of 'shared household' emphasizes the factum of a domestic relationship and no investigation into the ownership of the said household is necessary, as per the definition. Even if an inquiry is made into the aspect of ownership of the household, the definition casts a wide enough net. It is couched in inclusive terms and is not in any way, exhaustive.".The decision of the Supreme Court in Taruna Batra was again criticised for narrowly interpreting 'shared household' by the Delhi High Court in Smt. PreetiSatijavs Smt. Raj Kumari. ."Parliament's intention by the 2005 Act was to secure the rights of aggrieved persons in the shared household, in respect of which the Respondent had jointly or singly any right, title, interest, or "equity". The right is not dependent on title, but the mere factum of residence.".Further, in Roma Rajesh Tiwarivs Rajesh DinanathTiwarithe Bombay High Court observed: "The 'title of the husband or that of the family members to the said flat' is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant whether the Respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household. The moment it is proved that it was a shared household, as both of them had, in their matrimonial relationship, i.e. domestic relationship, resided together there, it follows that the Petitioner-wife gets right to reside therein…"..Shared Household Conundrum: Conflicting Jurisprudence.The Judgements of Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court establish an optimistic deviation from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 'shared household conundrum'.Fortunately, these cases widely interpreted the definition of 'shared household' and reflected the true intention of the legislature..However, the precedent in Taruna Batra has not ceased to exist by virtue of these decisions. A recent reiteration of the same was observed in Manju Gupta v. Pankaj Gupta. A single-judge bench of the Delhi High relied on the Supreme Court's decision and dismissed a petition filed by the petitioner-wife for a right to possession in the house owned by her father-in-law..The judgments on either spectrum have led to a conflicting jurisprudence over the question of a shared household. Thus, the decision in Taruna Batra continues to cast its shadow over 'right to residence' cases. The judgment also serves a reminder that the ultimate success of a law depends on how it is interpreted by the Judiciary.
[dropcap]I[/dropcap]N 2005, the Parliament of India enacted The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) which recognised domestic violence, for the first time, as a category of abuse. The act gave the women a right to reside in her matrimonial household and guard her against illegal dispossession. A plain reading of the definition of "shared household" under Section 2(s) of the PWDVA indicates that a woman is entitled to her rights in a shared household, irrespective of whether the shared household is in the name of the husband or his relatives..The intention of the legislature to insert an all-encompassing definition of the "shared household" in PWDVA was two-fold. Firstly, the concept of ownership was distinguished from possession to protect women from removal or threats of removal from house in which she has no title. Secondly, it was done keeping in mind the family structure in Indian households, where sons, even after their marriage, continue to live with their parents..However, over the years, the judicial interpretation of the act has led to its dilution. A notorious judgment of the Supreme Court in S.R. Batra vs Taruna Batra, narrowly interpreted 'shared household' which has prevented women from stating their claim, as intended..Narrow Interpretation of Shared Household.The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice MarkandeyKatju, held that a wife is entitled to claim a right to residence only in a shared household, which would only mean the house belonging to, or taken by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, it would not extend to a property which is owned by the in-laws, irrespective of whether it is her matrimonial home or not..Section 2(s) of PWDVA clearly states that a woman has a right to residence in shared household irrespective of whether she has any right, title or interest in it. The Supreme Court by restricting the right to residence only to the cases where the husband owns some property or has some share in it has curtailed the usefulness of the right to the residence itself..PWDVA is an extension of a deeper and profound principle of Women's rights. There is no place for proprietary rights or ownership under PWDVA. However, the Supreme Court, by limiting the definition of shared household, introduced the element of proprietary rights and puts it over women's rights..Further, in deciding the case, the court ventured into hypothetical and imaginary situations and did little to interpret the law based on the concrete facts of the case. It observed that the husband and wife may have lived in dozens of places like with husband's parents, grandparents, uncles, etc. If all these places were to be interpreted as 'shared household', it would lead to a situation of chaos. Based on this specious reasoning, the judgment declares that "any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted". Such a view completely negates the scheme of the act which links the term 'shared household' to the concept of a domestic relationship. What amounts to the shared household under the act can be easily determined by judging each case on its own merit..As the act recognised, in India, it is not uncommon for sons to reside with their parents in a common household. The concept of a nuclear household, though on a rise, is yet to become a norm. Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court fails to acknowledge this reality..A Glimmer of Hope.The Supreme Court's decision has adversely impacted the rights of several women who have been denied the right to reside in their matrimonial homes..However, a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Eveneet Singh vs Prakash Chaudhary & Ors, came as a positive aberration. The Court held that the introduction of the remedy of "right to residence" is a path-breaking step, taken to further the objects of the Act and a restrictive interpretation of the term 'shared household' would be contrary to the scheme and objective of the Act. It held that the concept of ownership is not the single most important factor in deciding if a woman has the right to reside in the shared household: "The definition of 'shared household' emphasizes the factum of a domestic relationship and no investigation into the ownership of the said household is necessary, as per the definition. Even if an inquiry is made into the aspect of ownership of the household, the definition casts a wide enough net. It is couched in inclusive terms and is not in any way, exhaustive.".The decision of the Supreme Court in Taruna Batra was again criticised for narrowly interpreting 'shared household' by the Delhi High Court in Smt. PreetiSatijavs Smt. Raj Kumari. ."Parliament's intention by the 2005 Act was to secure the rights of aggrieved persons in the shared household, in respect of which the Respondent had jointly or singly any right, title, interest, or "equity". The right is not dependent on title, but the mere factum of residence.".Further, in Roma Rajesh Tiwarivs Rajesh DinanathTiwarithe Bombay High Court observed: "The 'title of the husband or that of the family members to the said flat' is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant whether the Respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household. The moment it is proved that it was a shared household, as both of them had, in their matrimonial relationship, i.e. domestic relationship, resided together there, it follows that the Petitioner-wife gets right to reside therein…"..Shared Household Conundrum: Conflicting Jurisprudence.The Judgements of Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court establish an optimistic deviation from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 'shared household conundrum'.Fortunately, these cases widely interpreted the definition of 'shared household' and reflected the true intention of the legislature..However, the precedent in Taruna Batra has not ceased to exist by virtue of these decisions. A recent reiteration of the same was observed in Manju Gupta v. Pankaj Gupta. A single-judge bench of the Delhi High relied on the Supreme Court's decision and dismissed a petition filed by the petitioner-wife for a right to possession in the house owned by her father-in-law..The judgments on either spectrum have led to a conflicting jurisprudence over the question of a shared household. Thus, the decision in Taruna Batra continues to cast its shadow over 'right to residence' cases. The judgment also serves a reminder that the ultimate success of a law depends on how it is interpreted by the Judiciary.
