Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Umakant Havgirao Bondre and Shobha Umakant Bondre, are the parents of respondent No.2 Suraj Bondre and in-laws of respondent No.1 Sakshi @ Sonali Bondre. The marriage of respondents was solemnized on 10.06.2015, but disputes arose and from 17.04.2016, Sakshi started residing at her maternal house. Sakshi filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) against her husband Suraj and his parents. The Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, by order dated 12.02.2018, permitted Sakshi to occupy the shared household bearing No. 3-1-862/1/3-1-930, which is owned by applicant No.1 Umakant Bondre. The applicants challenged this order in Criminal Revision Application No.59 of 2018. During the pendency of the revision, Sakshi filed Criminal Application No.2716 of 2021 seeking interim maintenance. The court considered the definition of 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and the right of residence under Section 17. It noted that the property in question is owned by the father-in-law, who is not a respondent in the DV proceedings. The court held that the right of residence under Section 17 is not absolute and cannot be enforced against a third-party owner who is not a respondent. The court also observed that the husband has no right in the property, and therefore, the wife cannot claim a right to reside in it. The court set aside the order granting right of residence. However, considering the wife's need for maintenance, the court directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month from the date of application. The revision was allowed, and the application for maintenance was disposed of.
Headnote
A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Shared Household - Right of Residence - Section 2(s), Section 17, Section 19 - The daughter-in-law's right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 is not enforceable against the father-in-law who is the owner of the property, when the husband has no right in the property and the parents-in-law are not respondents in the DV proceedings. The court held that the shared household must be a household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, but the right of residence is not absolute against a third-party owner. (Paras 1-10) B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Interim Maintenance - Section 20 - The court directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month to the wife from the date of application, as the wife was unable to maintain herself. (Para 11) C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Revision - Maintainability - Section 397 - The revision against the order granting right of residence was held maintainable as the order was passed without jurisdiction and was perverse. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the daughter-in-law can claim right of residence in a shared household owned by her father-in-law, who is not a respondent in the DV proceedings, and whether the parents-in-law can be directed to provide alternative accommodation.
Final Decision
The court allowed the criminal revision application and set aside the order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, permitting Sakshi to occupy the shared household. The court also directed respondent No.2 (husband) to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month to respondent No.1 (wife) from the date of application, i.e., from the date of filing of Criminal Application No.2716 of 2021.
Law Points
- Right of residence under DV Act is not absolute against third-party owner
- Shared household definition under Section 2(s) of DV Act
- Maintainability of revision against interim order under DV Act
- Section 19 of DV Act for residence orders
- Section 17 of DV Act for right to reside in shared household
