Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 976 (MAD)

Lejeune Ramot Sarodja v. Kavitha

2014-04-23

C.T.SELVAM

body2014
ORDER 1. The respondent has moved a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women (from Domestic Violence) Act in M.C. No. 13 of 2013 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Karaikal. Her husband is the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 25447 of 2013 and petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 18318 of 2013 are her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Petitioners seek to quash proceedings in above case. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the respondent has moved M.C. No. 13 of 2013 on 25.02.2013 and therein she has sought an order restraining the petitioners or any of their relatives ‘from entering into any of the portions of the shared household on the north fencing room in the house in door No.22-E, Singaravelar Salai, Karaikal in which the aggrieved person/respondent has been residing and if necessary to impose any additional condition that may be necessary to protect or provide for the safety of the aggrieved person and her child and if necessary require the petitioners herein to execute the bond with or without sureties preventing the commission of domestic violence u/s 19 in addition to police protection to continue the possession and not by dispossession of the said shared house hold of the respondent’. 3. Learned counsel produced a settlement deed dated 31.03.2012 registered as Doc No.2121/2012 at the SRO, Karaikal, wherein the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 25447 of 2013, husband of the complainant/respondent, has settled the property in favour of his mother, the first petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 18318 of 2013. The submission of learned counsel is that the property wherein the respondent seeks a right of residence is the sole and absolute property of the mother-in-law/first petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 18318 of 2013 and as on the date of the petition in M.C. No. 13/2013 no such right accrued to the respondent. In support of his submission, learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex court in S.R. Batra and Another v. Smt. Taruna Batra AIR 2007 SC 1118 : (2007) 3 SCC 169 : (2007) 1 MLJ (Crl) 908. 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex court in S.R. Batra and Another v. Smt. Taruna Batra AIR 2007 SC 1118 : (2007) 3 SCC 169 : (2007) 1 MLJ (Crl) 908. 4. Learned counsel for respondent/complainant submitted that the property wherein the respondent claims right is one where she and her husband, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.25447 of 2013, had resided as husband and wife and as such her right of residence therein cannot be defeated by a subsequent act of settlement of property in favour of her mother-in-law. Learned counsel would also submit that even otherwise the respondent would be entitled to an order of protection. 5. This Court is unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for respondent in so far as the claim for right of residence in ‘shared household’ is concerned. Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, describes shared household thus: “Shared household means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household” Paragraphs 22 and 23 in decision of the Apex court in S.R. Batra and Another v. Smt. Taruna Batra (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners, read as follows: “22. As regards section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion 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. As regards section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion 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. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband Amit Batra is a member, it is the exclusive property of appellant No.2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a ‘shared household’. 23. No doubt, the definition of ‘shared household’ in Section 2(s) of the Act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society”. 6. The above extract leaves no room for doubt that the property settled in favour of the mother-in-law even before the respondent filed M.C. No. 13 of 2013, would not fall within the description of shared household. As such, the respondent cannot have any claim or right to reside therein. An order of protection safeguarding residential rights would become necessary only when there is a right to reside in property and when such right exists not, there is no room for such an order. 7. Petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 18318 of 2013 are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant. As regards the sister-in-law, a married person, the allegation is that she used to come and stay in the matrimonial residence and create all sorts of problems. Again, against both mother-in-law and sister-in-law, the allegations are of their as also the husband of the complainant beating her and of the husband indulging in all sorts of wrong doing at the instance and in collusion with the in-laws. The same are seen to be the present day all too common refrain towards roping in family members. Thus, this Court is inclined to allow Crl. O.P. No. 18318 of 2013. However, this Court finds that the complaint does inform wrong doing on the part of the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 25447 of 2013 and also seeks monetary relief against him. 8. Thus, this Court is inclined to allow Crl. O.P. No. 18318 of 2013. However, this Court finds that the complaint does inform wrong doing on the part of the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 25447 of 2013 and also seeks monetary relief against him. 8. Accordingly, this Court orders as follows: (i) Crl. O.P. No. 18318 of 2013 stands allowed. The proceedings in M.C. No. 13 of 2013 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate II, Karaikal, stands quashed in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned. (ii) Crl. O.P. No. 25447 of 2013 stands dismissed. Petition allowed.