There are legislations which use a certain terminology to enforce rights. Their application by the authorities, and particularly when the matter reaches the Court, decides the actual scope of such legislations. Such is the case if we talk about landmark Supreme Court judgments on shared household. It is important to ascertain what constitutes a shared household, to decide who is a victim under the Domestic Violence laws in India. Here is a compilation of important shared household case law by Supreme Court wherein the Court has discussed various aspects and settled things around the same.
Supreme Court Judgments on Shared Household
Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (2022) 5 SCR 970
The facts of the case reveal that the woman’s husband died within a month of marriage, and she gave birth to a daughter within a year. It was alleged that the woman was being harassed by her in-laws, forced to leave her matrimonial death. She started working to support herself and her daughter, and sought back her Stridhan from in-laws through a legal notice, which the in-laws never responded to. This led the woman to seek appropriate orders for protection, residence, compensation and monetary relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Why this one became a landmark shared household case law is because the Supreme Court took the opportunity to state how a woman not currently residing in the shared household could still proceed with an application under the DV Act 2005. The Court stated that “Even if an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household at the time of filing of an application u/s. 12 but has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subjected to domestic violence or is later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship, is entitled to file an application u/s 12 of the Act.”
The Supreme Court judgment on shared household clarified that it was not mandatory for the aggrieved person to actually reside with the respondents at the time of commission of domestic violence. If the woman was related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or member of a joint family and has the right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act and becomes a victim of domestic violence, she can seek reliefs under the provisions of DV Act. The Supreme Court judgment further included enforcement of her right to live in a shared household.
The crux is that the Supreme Court was okay with the woman not living in the shared household at the time of making an application for reliefs under DV Act. The only requirement as highlighted was that she should have at some point lived in the shared household, or should have the right to live there. Such a woman if subjected to domestic violence at any point, or later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship, she can file an application under Section 12 of DV Act. The shared household judgment here expands its scope to children taken care of as foster children when they become aggrieved.
Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) 13 SCR 1093
With reference to Supreme Court’s shared household case law in Satish Chandra Ajuha, the Court clarified that the right to residence under DV Act Section 19 is not an indefeasible right. The Court particularly picturised the factual scenario of a daughter-in-law claiming a right against aged parents-in-law. The Apex Court elaborated that “While granting relief u/S. 12 of the D.V. Act, or in any civil proceeding, the court has to balance the rights between the aggrieved woman and the parents-in-law”.
The Supreme Court further illuminated the scope of shared household and right to residence with the expression “Section 19 (1)(f) of the D.V. Act provides that the Magistrate may pass a residence order inter alia directing the respondent to secure the same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved woman as enjoyed by her in the shared household. While passing such an order, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay the rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties.”
Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020) 12 SCR 189
This Supreme Court judgment on shared household presses upon the statutory definition of the term and its exhaustive nature. The Court held the definition of shared household under Section 2(s) as exhaustive since it uses the expressions “means and includes”. The Court clarified that “The first part of definition begins with expression “means” which is undoubtedly an exhaustive definition and second part of definition, which begins with word “includes” is explanatory of what was meant by the definition – The use of both the expressions “means and includes” in s.2(s), thus, clearly indicate the legislative intent that the definition is exhaustive and shall cover only those which fall within the purview of definition and no other”.
The shared household case law further requires the sense of permanence with reference to living in a household. The Supreme Court judgment signified that mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared household. The Apex Court in this regard clarified the status of a household tenanted etc. The Court elaborated that “In case, the shared household of a woman is a tenanted/allotted/licensed accommodation where tenancy/allotment/license is in the name of husband, father-in-law or any other relative, the Act, 2005 does not operate against the landlord/lessor/licensor in initiating an appropriate proceedings for eviction of the tenant/allottee/licensee qua the shared household – However, in case the proceedings are due to any collusion between the two, the woman, who is living in the shared household has right to resist the proceedings on all grounds which the tenant/lessee/ licensee could have taken in the proceedings – The embargo under s.17(2) of Act, 2005 of not to be evicted or excluded save in accordance with the procedure established by law operates only against the “respondent”, i.e., one who is respondent within the meaning of s.2(q) of Act, 2005.”
When the question arises on conflict of shared household as against the rights of senior citizens, the Supreme Court seeks to strike a balance through this shared household case law. The Court held that “The right to residence under s.19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law – The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law – Therefore, while granting relief both in application under s.12 of Act, 2005 or in any civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties.”
Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma (2013) 14 SCR 1019
The matter pertains to a couple living in a relationship in a shared household while the man was married to someone else. After a while, he left the live-in partner and came back to his family. The woman complained of her partner’s failure to maintain her which amounted to domestic violence. While looking at the suitable provisions for maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, the Supreme Court particularly looked at the requisites of a shared household in the absence of marital relations between parties.
The Apex Court took the opportunity to make it a shared household case law by expanding the scope of Section 2(f) of the DV Act which defines domestic relationship. The Court elaborated that it means “a relationship between two persons who live or have lived together at such point of time in F a shared household, through a relationship in the nature of marriage. The expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” is also described as defacto relationship, marriage – like relationship, cohabitation, couple relationship, meretricious relationship (now known as committed intimate G relationship) etc.” The Court further highlighted that acts like supporting each other financially while sharing bank accounts, or acquiring immovable properties in joint names, long-term investments in business reflect a long standing relationship, are the guiding factors for a shared household. Couples having sexual relationships wherein the woman may be entrusted to run the home, do household chores, indicates relationship in the nature of marriage.
Speaking of Domestic relationship between unmarried adults of opposite sex, the Supreme Court judgment on shared household clarifies that “Relationship between an unmarried adult woman and an unmarried adult male who lived or, at any point of time lived together in a shared household, will fall under the definition of Section 2(f) of the DV Act and in case, there is any domestic violence, the same will fall under Section 3 of the DV Act and the aggrieved person can always seek reliefs provided under Chapter IV of the DV Act.
