2006 (12) TMI 487 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband s in-laws or other relatives? Whether the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a shared household would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member?

Summary

Issues:
1. Matrimonial home rights and possession
2. Interpretation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
3. Definition of 'shared household' under the Act

Matrimonial home rights and possession:
The case involved a dispute over the possession of a property where the respondent, married to the son of the appellants, claimed it as her matrimonial home. The trial judge granted a temporary injunction in her favor, but the Senior Civil Judge overturned it, stating that she was not residing in the property. The High Court judge, however, ruled in favor of the respondent, considering the property as her matrimonial home despite her husband moving out. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's view, emphasizing that India lacks a law similar to England's Matrimonial Homes Act, and any rights would be against the husband, not the in-laws.

Interpretation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:
The respondent relied on this Act to support her claim of not being dispossessed from the property. The Act provides for the right of residence in a shared household for women in domestic relationships. However, the Supreme Court held that since the respondent was not residing in the property, she could not claim protection under the Act. The Court also clarified that the Act's provisions for alternative accommodation apply only against the husband, not his in-laws or other relatives.

Definition of 'shared household' under the Act:
The respondent argued that the property in question should be considered a shared household under the Act since she had lived there in the past. However, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, highlighting that accepting such a broad definition would lead to absurd outcomes. The Court emphasized that a shared household under the Act refers to the husband's property or joint family property, neither of which applied to the property in dispute. The Court stressed the need for a sensible interpretation of the Act to avoid societal chaos.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and upholding the Senior Civil Judge's decision to dismiss the respondent's injunction application. The Court clarified the limitations of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in cases where the property in question does not meet the criteria of a shared household as defined by the Act.