Woman's Plea For Right To Shared Household Maintainable Even In Absence Of Domestic Violence: Delhi High Court

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna thus ruled that an application/complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the Magistrate is maintainable even if there was no domestic violence.

The bench was considering the plea of a husband and his parents to quash the respondent-wife's complaint against them under Section 12 of the DV Act. The petitioner no. 1 was married to the respondent, an Indian Army Officer, and petitioners no. 2 & 3 are parents of petitioner no. 1.

The petitioners sought quashing of the complaint on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation, the Magistrate in Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complaint did not disclose any act of domestic violence.

Limitation

The petitioner contended that the complaint under Section 12 of the Act was barred by limitation.

The High Court referred to Kamatchi vs Lakshmi Narayanan (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370), where the Supreme Court observed held that the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable for the filing of an application by an aggrieved woman under Section 12 of the DV Act. It was observed that only when there is a breach of Order of Protection passed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act and it constitutes the offence under Section 31 of the D.V. Act, the period of limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. 1973 would become applicable.

The High Court thus held that the application was not barred by limitation.

Territorial jurisdiction

The petitioner no. 1 contended that as he and the respondent did not reside in Delhi together, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. However, the respondent argued that after the separation, she was compelled to shift to her parental home in Delhi. She argued that at the time of filing of the present Petition in 2017, she was temporarily posted in Delhi and her permanent residence is her parental home in Delhi.

The Court referred to Section 27(1) of D.V. Act, which stipulates that the Magistrate within whose local limits the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed, would have the jurisdiction to entertain the application.

The Court noted that when the respondent filed the present application, she was reporting to Army Aviation Directorate in Delhi. It noted that as she was on temporary duty, she resided in Delhi till her next posting. It observed “Now also, she may be away on postings, but her assertions that her permanent Residence is with her parents in Delhi, cannot be overlooked.”

The Court thus was of the view it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It observed “Thus, the Respondent was residing with her parents within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned M.M. at the time of filing of the Petition. In the facts of the present case, prima facie it has been shown that this Court has territorial jurisdiction and the plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is not tenable.”

Averments of domestic violence

The petitioners contended that the averments made by domestic violence are vague and not specific. However, the Court wad of the view that specific averments have been made to make out a case of domestic violence which needs to be considered on merits.

Observing that various reliefs can be claimed under DV Act, the Court stated “This definition of Domestic Violence is comprehensive and includes not only physical abuse, but also mental and emotional abuse. Most importantly, it also includes economic abuse. Further, the reliefs which a person may seek under the D.V. Act, are not limited only to monetary reliefs, but also extend to custody orders in respect of the child, compensation for the injury or physical, mental, emotional distress caused to the person; most importantly to Protection Orders and Residence Orders i.e. a right to shared household.”

It noted the respondent-wife sought reliefs for protection, residence order, monetary relief and custody of the child as well as compensation order in her complaint under the D.V. Act.

The Court further noted that the respondent claimed a right in shared household under Section 17 of the Act. It referred to Section 17(1)), which states that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

It referred to Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474), where the Supreme Court observed that every woman in a domestic relationship has a right to reside in the shared household even in the absence of any act of domestic violence by the husband.

The Court thus noted that being a victim of domestic violence is not a pre-requisite under Section 17. It stated that even if there was no domestic violence in the present case, the respondent's right to claim residence was still maintainable.

“Therefore, even if the contention of Petitioner is accepted that there was no domestic violence, then too her right to claim residence is still maintainable.”

In view of the above, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case title: SQN LDR PRABHAKAR BHATT vs. MAJ. ANNU LAMBA

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 251