Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, husband and his family members, challenged the concurrent orders of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Zari Jamni, and the Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur, which granted relief to the respondent-wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The wife had filed an application under Section 12 of the Act seeking protection from domestic violence, right to reside in the shared household, and maintenance. The marriage took place on 22nd November 2010 and was still subsisting. The wife alleged domestic violence and sought to stay in the flat owned by the petitioners at Nanded. The Magistrate allowed the application, granting residence and maintenance, which was upheld by the Sessions Judge. The High Court considered the definition of 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the Act and the right to reside under Section 17. The court held that the flat where the wife resided after marriage is a shared household, regardless of ownership or exclusive possession. The court noted that the wife had a right to reside in the shared household and was entitled to maintenance. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the lower courts. The court emphasized that the definition of shared household is broad and includes any household where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence - Shared Household - Definition under Section 2(s) - The flat owned by the husband's father, where the wife resided after marriage, constitutes a 'shared household' even if the wife is not in exclusive possession - The right to reside under Section 17 is not dependent on ownership or exclusive possession - Held that the wife is entitled to residence and maintenance in such a shared household (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the flat owned by the husband's father can be considered a 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, entitling the wife to residence and maintenance.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge. The court held that the flat is a shared household and the wife is entitled to residence and maintenance.
Law Points
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- Section 12
- Section 2(s)
- Section 17
- Section 19
- Section 20
- shared household
- right to reside
- maintenance
- domestic relationship
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (09) 148
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3 of 2015
Mr. P. V. Kulkarni for petitioners, Mr. H.N. Bhondge for respondent no.1, Mr. P.V. Bhoyar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2
Prashant son of Prakash Maggidwar, Pravin son of Prakash Maggidwar, Prakash son of Pandharinath Maggidwar, Sau. Vijaya wife of Prakash Maggidwar
Sau. Ashwini wife of Prashant Maggidwar, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging concurrent orders granting relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Judge granting residence and maintenance to the respondent-wife.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the orders on the ground that the flat in question was not a 'shared household' as defined under the Act.
Previous Decisions
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Zari Jamni, allowed the wife's application under Section 12 of the Act, granting residence and maintenance. The Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur, dismissed the appeal on 4th December 2014.
Issues
Whether the flat owned by the husband's father constitutes a 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Whether the wife is entitled to residence and maintenance in such a shared household.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the flat is not a shared household as the wife was not in exclusive possession and the property belongs to the father-in-law.
Respondent-wife argued that she resided in the flat after marriage and it is a shared household under the Act, entitling her to residence and maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi
The definition of 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is broad and includes any household where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship, regardless of ownership or exclusive possession. The right to reside under Section 17 is not dependent on ownership.
Judgment Excerpts
The definition of 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the Act is very wide and includes any household where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship.
The right to reside under Section 17 is not dependent on ownership or exclusive possession.
Procedural History
The respondent-wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Zari Jamni, which was allowed. The petitioners appealed to the Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur, who dismissed the appeal on 4th December 2014. The petitioners then filed the present criminal writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Section 12, Section 2(s), Section 17, Section 19, Section 20
