Case Note & Summary
The case involves a revision application filed by the husband and his family members challenging the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, which dismissed their appeal against a protection order granted to the wife and her minor son under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The wife, Sunanda Dhananjay Gaikwad, married the applicant No.1, Dhananjay Ramkrishna Gaikwad, on 3rd March 2002. Shortly after marriage, she faced domestic violence and left the matrimonial home. She issued a notice in December 2003 and filed a maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was amicably settled on 5th March 2006, and she returned to cohabit. However, within three months, she was again subjected to harassment and cruelty and driven out. She also filed a criminal case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the husband and his family. Subsequently, she filed an application under the Domestic Violence Act seeking protection and residence orders. The trial court granted a protection order under Section 18, directing the applicants not to commit domestic violence and to allow the wife and son to reside in the matrimonial home. The applicants appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal. The High Court considered the legal issue of whether the property in question, owned by the husband's father, constitutes a 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the Act. The court held that the wife had lived in the property in a domestic relationship, and therefore it is a shared household. The court also noted that the wife's right to reside in the shared household is protected under Section 17 of the Act, and the protection order was justified. The revision application was dismissed, upholding the protection order.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence - Protection Order - Section 18, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Right to reside in shared household - The wife, subjected to domestic violence, sought protection order to reside in the matrimonial home. The court held that the wife has a right to reside in the shared household irrespective of her marital status, and the property owned by the husband's father is a shared household as the wife lived there in a domestic relationship. The protection order was upheld. (Paras 1-10) B) Domestic Violence - Shared Household - Section 2(s), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Definition of shared household - The court interpreted 'shared household' to include any household where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship, even if the property is owned by a relative of the husband. The wife's right to reside continues even after divorce. (Paras 5-8) C) Domestic Violence - Maintenance - Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Interim maintenance - The wife had earlier filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, which was settled amicably. However, subsequent domestic violence led to the filing under the Domestic Violence Act. The court held that the earlier settlement does not bar the wife from seeking protection under the DV Act. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the wife is entitled to protection order under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and whether the property in question is a 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the Act.
Final Decision
The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. The protection order granted under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is upheld.
Law Points
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- Section 18
- Section 2(s)
- Section 17
- shared household
- right to reside
- domestic relationship
- aggrieved person
- residence order
