Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a matrimonial proceeding where the respondent-husband had filed a petition for nullity or divorce against the petitioner-wife. During the pendency of that petition, the wife filed an application for interim injunction to prevent her dispossession from the flat at Mulund, which she claimed was her matrimonial home. The Family Court initially granted an ex-parte ad-interim order of status quo on 29 September 2014, restraining the husband from disturbing her possession. Subsequently, the husband applied to vacate that order, contending that the flat belonged exclusively to his father, that he himself resided elsewhere, and that the wife’s marriage to him was void due to an alleged prior subsisting marriage. The wife resisted, asserting her right to reside in the shared household as an aggrieved person under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Family Court, by its order dated 30 May 2017, vacated the status quo on the sole ground that the property stood in the name of the husband’s father and the wife had no right to claim relief against a third-party property. Aggrieved, the wife filed the present writ petition before the High Court. The core legal issue was whether the wife’s right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act is contingent upon the husband or his family holding title to the premises. The High Court examined Section 19 of the Act, which empowers a Magistrate to pass a residence order restraining the respondent from dispossessing the aggrieved person from the shared household “whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household”. The Court also analyzed the definition of “shared household” under Section 2(s), which includes a household where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship, irrespective of ownership by the respondent or a joint family. The Court observed that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act expressly secures the right of a woman to reside in her matrimonial home or shared household regardless of title. Since the parties had admittedly lived together in the disputed flat as husband and wife until differences arose, it constituted a shared household. Thus, the Family Court’s reasoning that the flat belonged to the father and the husband had no interest was legally irrelevant. The High Court held that the impugned order was contrary to the clear mandate of the statute and quashed it. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the Family Court’s order dated 30 May 2017 was set aside, and the status quo order dated 29 September 2014 was restored. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs, reaffirming the legislative intent to provide housing security to aggrieved women.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Matrimonial Home - Right of Residence - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 19, Section 2(s) - Dispute pertained to wife's right to reside in flat that belonged to husband's father - Family Court vacated status quo on ground wife had no right as husband had no title - High Court held that under Section 19, wife's right to reside in shared household is independent of husband's legal or equitable interest; the flat where parties lived together as husband and wife constitutes shared household; title irrelevant - Held that Family Court's order is illegal, quashed, and status quo restored. (Paras 13-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner-wife has a right of residence in the flat at Mulund which is claimed to be her matrimonial home, despite the fact that the flat stands in the name of the respondent's father and respondent has no title or interest therein, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the Family Court's order dated 30 May 2017 vacating the status quo, and restored the status quo order dated 29 September 2014. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- right of residence in matrimonial home under Section 19 of DV Act is independent of title
- shared household includes property where parties lived together in domestic relationship
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 overrides proprietary rights of third parties in securing housing rights of aggrieved woman
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (10) 105
Writ Petition No. 10696 of 2017
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
Rajesh L. Dharap, S.R. Dubey
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Family Court's order vacating the status quo order previously granted in respect of the matrimonial home.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner-wife sought to set aside the Family Court's order dated 30 May 2017 and to restore the order of status quo dated 29 September 2014, thereby restraining the respondent-husband from dispossessing her from the shared household.
Filing Reason
The Family Court vacated the status quo order on the ground that the flat belonged to the husband's father, leaving the wife without the protection of an injunction to reside in her matrimonial home.
Previous Decisions
On 29 September 2014, the Family Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte order of status quo in respect of the flat, restraining the husband from disturbing the wife's possession. On 30 May 2017, the Family Court vacated the status quo order.
Issues
Whether the petitioner-wife has a right of residence in the flat at Mulund which is claimed to be her matrimonial home, despite the fact that the flat stands in the name of the respondent's father and the respondent has no title or interest therein, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner-wife contended that the flat was her matrimonial home and she had a right to reside there under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, irrespective of title; the Family Court's order vacating status quo solely because the property stood in the name of the husband's father was illegal.
Respondent-husband argued that the flat belonged exclusively to his father, he himself resided elsewhere, the wife's marriage to him was void due to a prior subsisting marriage, and therefore the wife had no right to claim any relief in respect of that property.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a wife has a right to reside in the shared household irrespective of whether the husband or his family members hold title or legal/equitable interest in the property. The definition of 'shared household' under Section 2(s) covers a household where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship with the respondent, and the question of title or proprietary right is irrelevant for the purpose of granting a residence order. The Family Court's decision vacating status quo solely because the flat belonged to the husband's father was contrary to the provisions and objects of the Act.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 19 of the said D.V. Act provides for 'Residence Orders'. It lays down that, 'When any application under Section 12 is made with a complaint of domestic violence, while disposing of such application, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order; (a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing, or, in any other manner, disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household'.
These words 'whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household' are of utmost significance, when the right of the aggrieved person, i.e. the wife, is to be decided so far as her residence in shared household is concerned.
The question of title or proprietary right in the property is not at all of relevance, when the provisions of the D.V. Act; especially Section 19 thereof, are to be considered. As a matter of fact, it needs to be emphasized that, as the wife's right to reside in the matrimonial home was being defeated on this very ground that the house does not belong to the husband or does not stand in his name, this D.V. Act was brought in the Statute Book with the specific and clear language and the unequivocal Clause that the 'title of the husband or that of the family members to the said flat', is totally irrelevant.
Procedural History
The respondent-husband filed Petition No. A-630 of 2014 before the Family Court, Mumbai, seeking a decree of nullity or divorce. The petitioner-wife filed a written statement and an application (Exhibit-13) for interim injunction restraining the husband from dispossessing her from the matrimonial home. On 29 September 2014, the Family Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim order of status quo in respect of the flat at Mulund. The respondent then filed an application (Exhibit-26) to vacate the status quo, contending that the flat belonged to his father and the wife had no right. After hearing both parties, the Family Court, vide its order dated 30 May 2017, vacated the status quo order on the ground that the property was owned by the father and the wife had no claim. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner-wife filed the present writ petition before the High Court. The High Court issued rule, heard the matter finally by consent, and passed the instant judgment on 12 October 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Section 19, Section 2(s)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 498, Section 34
