The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held in the matter of AARTI SHARMA & ANR v. GANGA SARAN in RSA No. 14/2021 as under:-
These are the relevant Paras:
20. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Ahuja (supra) to argue that in the said judgment, there is no observation to the effect that if the husband and the wife are living together, the right of the wife under the DV Act, to claim ‘shared household’ and the right to reside, can be taken away. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Vanitha (supra) to argue that even in the said judgment, the daughter-in-law had not specifically filed a complaint under the DV Act, and the said judgment further explains the right to reside in detail, to the effect that even if the son and daughter-in-law are living together or if the son continues to live with the daughter-in-law, the right of the daughter-in-law to reside in the matrimonial home cannot be defeated.
Analysis and Findings:
I. On Condonation of delay in filing the appeal
21. CM Appl. 21708/2021 and CM Appl. 3966/2021 are applications that have been filed on behalf of the Defendants, seeking condonation of delay in filing the present second appeal. The impugned order in this case was passed on 16th November, 2019. The Defendants applied for a certified copy on 9th December, 2019, which was received on 13th January, 2020. As per the Supreme Court order in In Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation (supra), the period of 15th March, 2020 till 14 th March, 2021 is to be excluded while calculating the limitation period, in light of the COVID19 pandemic. Accordingly, after deducting the period during which the certified copy was to be issued by the Court, the limitation of 90 days to file the present second appeal, has not expired prior to 15 th March, 2020. The appeal was filed on 25th January, 2021, which is within the period excluded by the Supreme Court’s order.
22. Considering these facts, there is no delay in filing the present appeal. However, the Defendants have filed these applications by way abundant caution. Accordingly, the delay, if any, in filing the present appeal stands condoned. Applications are disposed of.
II. On the merits of the present second appeal
23. This court has heard ld. counsels for the parties from time to time, and has perused the record. The ld. Counsel for the Appellants/Defandants has placed vehement reliance on the judgments recently delivered by the Supreme Court on the issue of ‘shared household’ in the context of the DV Act. The fact that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property is not disputed. However, some arguments have been raised in respect of how the Plaintiff got ownership of the property. Primarily however, as a question of law in this second appeal, the only submission urged is in respect of the suit property being a ‘shared household’ or matrimonial home for the daughterin-law. Thus, before dealing with the merits of the matter, it is necessary to consider the judgments cited by the ld. Counsels for the parties.
Case laws
24. In Satish Chandra Ahuja (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with a dispute between in-laws and son on the one hand, and the daughterin-law on the other hand. There were various cases pending between the son and the daughter-in-law, including a divorce petition under Section 13 (1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and an application under Section 12 of the DV Act alleging severe emotional and mental abuse. A suit for injunction was filed by the father-in-law against the daughter-in-law without impleading the son. The daughter-in-law, who was having marital disputes with her husband, had in her defence claimed that the New Friends Colony residence, which was her matrimonial home, would be a ‘shared household’ in terms of Section 2 (s) of the DV Act, and accordingly she could not be evicted from the same. The Trial Court had passed a decree of eviction under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC, against the daughter-in-law, in the said suit. The said order of the Trial Court was appealed against, by the daughter-in- law, and the High Court had set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The High Court had refrained from determining as to whether the premises of the father-in-law would be a ‘shared household’ or not and had remanded the matter for trial. The said decision of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in this background, gave the following findings:
“i) The definition of ‘shared household’ under Section 2(s) of the DV Act, is an exhaustive definition.
ii) The ‘shared household’ could belong to any relative of the husband, with whom the daughter-in-law may have lived.
iii) The Supreme Court also held that the right to residence, as provided to the daughter-in-law under Section 19 of the DV Act, is not an indefeasible right, and hence the Court has to balance the rights of the parties.”
25. The observations of the Supreme Court are as under:
“83. Before we close our discussion on Section 2(s), we need to observe that the right to residence under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when the daughterin-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. While granting relief both in application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 or in any civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties. The directions issued by High court in paragraph 56 adequately balances the rights of both the parties.”
26. The Supreme Court further went on to observe that the claim of the Defendant that the suit property is a ‘shared household’, ought to have been considered by the trial Court. It held that a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 is discretionary and not a matter of right. It further held that the proceedings under the DV Act and the civil suit are independent proceedings and the order passed by the Magistrate in a DV Act proceeding would be of evidentiary value in the suit, but of a limited nature, as the issues raised in the civil suit are to be determined by the trial Court. Finally, the Supreme Court observed that relief under the DV Act can be sought in any legal proceeding, including a Civil Court. Family Court or a Criminal Court by the aggrieved person. The said observations of the Supreme Court are as under:
“93. As per Section 26, any relief available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act, 2005 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court, family court or a criminal court being the aggrieved person. Thus, the defendant is entitled to claim relief under Section 19 in suit, which has been filed by the plaintiff. Section 26 empowers the aggrieved person to claim above relief in Civil Courts also.
xx”
27. After analysing the law to the facts of the case, the court upheld the judgment of the High Court, setting aside the decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication
28. In the case of S. Vanitha (supra), the dispute arose between both the in-laws on the one hand, and the daughter-in-law, on the other. The son was also impleaded as a party. The in-laws, in the said case, had preferred an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter, “Senior Citizens Act)” and sought eviction of their daughter-in-law and grand-daughter. The authorities under the Senior Citizens Act directed the Defendant/ daughter-in-law in the said case, to vacate the premises. The same was upheld by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, which held that the remedy of the daughter-in-law to seek maintenance and shelter, lies only against the husband i.e., the son, and accordingly the eviction order was valid. This judgment of the Karnataka High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the right of residence given to the daughter-in-law, under the provisions of the DV Act, as also the relevance of the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act
29. The Supreme Court held that the intention of the legislators would be to read the said two legislations harmoniously, as both deal with the salutary aspects of public welfare and interest. It held that the Senior Citizens Act cannot have an overriding force in all situations irrespective of competing entitlements of a women in a ‘shared household’, as the same would defeat the purpose of the DV Act. The provisions of both the Acts cannot be ignored and have to be harmoniously construed. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as under:
“… The law protecting the interest of senior citizens is intended to ensure that they are not left destitute, or at the mercy of their children or relatives. Equally, the purpose of the PWDV Act 2005 cannot be ignored by a sleight of statutory interpretation. Both sets of legislations have to be harmoniously construed. Hence the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act 2007.”
30. The Supreme Court further observed that both these legislations are special legislations. Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act cannot override and nullify other provisions of law, including Section 17 of the DV Act. Applying the said law to the facts, the Supreme Court then emphasized upon the series of transactions in respect of the subject property from which the daughter-in-law was to be evicted. The Supreme Court observed that the said property was originally bought in the name of the son, just a few months before the marriage, and was sold a few years later at the same price to the father-in-law. The father-in-law then gifted the property to the mother-in-law, after divorce proceedings were initiated between the son and the daughter in law. The daughter-in-law had also filed proceedings for maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act. In the said background of the two proceedings filed by the son and the daughter-in-law against each other, the application under the Senior Citizens Act came to be filed by the fatherin-law. In that context the Supreme Court held as under:
“….A shared household would have to be interpreted to include the residence where the appellant had been jointly residing with her husband. Merely because the ownership of the property has been subsequently transferred to her in-laws (Second and Third Respondents) or that her estranged spouse (Fourth respondent) is now residing separately, is no ground to deprive the appellant of the protection that was envisaged under the PWDV Act 2005.”
31. The Supreme Court, thereafter, restrained the in-laws from evicting the daughter-in-law for a period of one year, in order to enable her to avail of her remedies in accordance with law. The operative portion of the judgement in Smt. Vanitha (supra) reads:
“For the above reasons, while allowing the appeal, we issue the following directions:
i) The impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated 17 September 2019 affirming the order of eviction against the appellant shall stand set aside with the consequence that the order of the Assistant Commissioner ordering and directing the appellant to vacate the suit premises shall stand set aside;
ii) We leave it open to the appellant to pursue her remedies under the PWDV Act 2005. For that purpose, it would be open to the appellant to seek the help of the District Legal Services Authorities and if the appellant does so, all necessary aid and assistance shall be furnished to her in pursuing her legal remedies and rights;
iii) IA 111352/2020 for restoration of the electricity connection is allowed by directing the Fourth respondent to take all necessary steps for restoration of the electricity connection to the premises within a period of two weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Fourth respondent shall also continue to pay the electricity dues in future; and
iv) In order to enable the appellant to pursue her remedies under the PWDV Act 2005, there shall be an order and direction restraining the respondents from forcibly dispossessing the appellant, disposing of the premises or from creating any right, title and interest in favour of any third party in any manner whatsoever for a period of one year, to enable the appellant to pursue her remedies in accordance with law. The appellant is at liberty to move the Court to espouse her remedies under the PWDV Act 2005 for appropriate orders, including interim protections.”
32. Previously, in Vinay Verma vs. Kanika Pasricha and Ors., 265 (2019) DLT 211 , this Court had the opportunity to examine both the Senior Citizens Act as also the DV Act, and had laid down certain guidelines to be followed by Courts, in order to strike a balance between the said two acts. The said guidelines read as under:
“1. The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the son’s/ daughter’s family
2. If the case involves eviction of a daughter in law, the court has to also ascertain whether the daughter-in-law was living as part of a joint family.
3. If the relationship is acrimonious, then the parents ought to be permitted to seek eviction of the son/daughter-in-law or daughter/son- in-law from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife would continue in terms of the principles under the DV Act.
4. If the relationship between the parents and the son are peaceful or if the parents are seen colluding with their son, then, an obligation to maintain and to provide for the shelter for the daughter-in-law would remain both upon the inlaws and the husband especially if they were living as part of a joint family. In such a situation, while parents would be entitled to seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from their property, an alternative reasonable accommodation would have to be provided to her.
5. In case the son or his family is ill-treating the parents then the parents would be entitled to seek unconditional eviction from their property so that they can live a peaceful life and also put the property to use for their generating income and for their own expenses for daily living.
6. If the son has abandoned both the parents and his own wife/children, then if the son’s family was living as part of a joint family prior to the breakdown of relationships, the parents would be entitled to seek possession from their daughter-inlaw, however, for a reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the daughter-inlaw during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband.”
Applicability of the law to the facts
33. The facts of the present case show that the suit before the Trial Court was instituted by the Plaintiff against both his son and his daughter-in-law. Undisputedly, the Plaintiff is not in a good financial condition, and in fact was required to avail of legal-aid, to be able to pursue the suit before the Trial Court.
34. The suit property was purchased by the Plaintiff on 26th December, 2011. His son got married in the year 2005 and both the son and daughterin-law started living in the suit property on the ground floor. Several disputes arose amongst the said family members, which, according to the Plaintiff, were due to the interference of the family members of the daughter-in-law, including the mother and the brothers of the daughter-inlaw. The Plaintiff is stated to have suffered various severe medical problems including a stroke and paralysis. The Plaintiff’s mother i.e., the grandmother of the son- is 85 years old and is also handicapped. She is living with the Plaintiff.
35. The Plaintiff had filed various complaints with the ACP, Bhajanpura, on 27th June, 2006, 10th June, 2006, 2nd April, 2008, 21st July, 2010, 22nd July, 2010 and 30th July, 2010, alleging humiliation, agony and threats by the Defendants. An application under the Senior Citizens Act was also filed by the Plaintiff in 2015, but no orders were passed in the same. The Plaintiff then disowned his son and got a publication issued to this effect on 27th December, 2015.
36. The Defendants, i.e., the son and daughter-in-law are employed. The daughter-in-law is a teacher and the son works as a sales agent in a showroom. The Defendants are stated to have threatened the Plaintiff that they would implicate him in a dowry case
AARTI SHARMA & ANR v. GANGA SARAN