SHASHI BHUSHAN Vs. ANJU GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are aggrieved by order dated May 31,2011 passed by CJM, Mansa, granting interim relief to respondent wife in her petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for short 'the Act'. The petitioners have been directed to allow the wife to live in the shared house -hold or to make arrangement for her residence on rent and to pay requisite rent therefor. There are other interim directions also passed which are not the subject of controversy. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, has also been dismissed.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in S.R. Batra and another Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra, 2007 1 RCR(Cri) 403wherein dealing with the definition of shared house -hold under Section 2 (s) of the Act has held that the definition for shared household is not very happily worded and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting. The Apex Court has, in peculiar circumstances of the said case, had rejected the contention of counsel for wife to the effect that definition of shared house -hold would include house hold where person aggrieved had lived at any stage in domestic relationship. The Apex Court had not accepted the interpretation that wherever the husband and wife live together in the past that property becomes a shared house -hold because it is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places, i.e. husband's father, husband's paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles etc. etc. The Apex Court observed that if said interpretation is accepted, in that eventuality all the houses of the relatives will be shared house -hold and the wife could insist in living in all these houses of the husband's relatives. It is also not out of place to observe here that the Apex Court had in said case refused to grant relief to a wife to stay in the house belonging to her mother -in -law under the residence order under Section 17 (1) of the Act. The Apex Court, in context to Section 19 (1) (g) of the Act held that in the said case the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against husband's relatives. The facts of the present case are absolutely different as has been discussed by the lower Appellate Court. The husband had not been shifting his residence but has been staying in the same house with his mother. The petitioner is still staying with his mother. In view of circumstances having not been changed, the wife cannot be denied a residence order under the Act. The judgment in S.R. Batra's case has got no applicability to the facts of the present case. The objective of the Act cannot be permitted to be defeated by denying a wife her statutory rights under the Act. In case the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted then every husband on changing the original residence or matrimonial home would be able to defeat the right of the wife for residence order under Section 17 of the Act.

(3.) THE provisions of Section 17 (2) of the Act clearly envisage that the aggrieved person i.e. wife shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared house -hold or any part of it by her husband save in accordance with the procedure established by law. The residence order under Section 19 of the Act cannot be denied to the respondent wife. It is not out of place to observe here that counsel for the petitioners has offered to pay a sum of Rs.5000/ - per month to secure alternate accommodation. The said offer has been claimed to be malafide by the counsel for the respondent and the respondent present in the Court on the ground that the respondent is entitled to secure same level of alternative accommodation as enjoyed by her in the shared house -hold. Sum of Rs.5000/ - per month will be a meager amount to the respondent to pay rent of similar accommodation which is occupied by the husband.