Foreign National Can Reside In 'Shared Household' Under Domestic Violence Act Regardless Of Visa Status: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that a woman being a foreign national can have a “shared household” with another person holding Indian citizenship regardless of her visa status under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that the objective of framing the Domestic Violence Act has no connection with the citizenship of a woman. Observing that the court...
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that a woman being a foreign national can have a “shared household” with another person holding Indian citizenship regardless of her visa status under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that the objective of framing the Domestic Violence Act has no connection with the citizenship of a woman.
Observing that the court must be careful not to conflate proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act with those under the Foreigners Act, 1946, Justice Bhambhani said there is nothing in the former to suggest that a “domestic relationship” can only be between two persons holding Indian citizenship.
Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act states that 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 further states that the aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Section 2(a) defines an“aggrieved person” as any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence.
“Domestic relationship” has been defined as a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.
Analyzing the provisions, the court observed that the citizenship of a woman does not find mention anywhere and is therefore of no relevance to an application made under Section 17.
“In fact, section 17 grants to „every woman‟ who is in a „domestic relationship‟ with a respondent, the right to reside in the „shared household‟ regardless of whether she has any right, title or the interest in the same,” it said.
Furthermore, the court observed even marriage is not an essential ingredient for a person to be in a domestic relationship with another.
“In the reading of this court, citizenship does not have even the remotest connection with a woman being an aggrieved person, or being in a domestic relationship, or having a shared household with a respondent. A foreign citizen may also fulfill the essential ingredients of being an „aggrieved person‟ in a „domestic relationship‟ with a right to reside in a „shared household‟ within the meaning of the DV Act,” the court said.
It added that where a person has entered the country without a visa or has continued to reside in breach of the conditions or the term of their visa, that would be irrelevant for deciding whether or not she has a right to reside in a shared household.
“To be sure, if a woman violates the conditions of her visa, she may be liable for action under the Foreigners Act; but that is not a consideration that would be relevant for deciding an application under section 12 of the DV Act,” the court said.
Justice Bhambhani said where a woman may have temporarily resided in India and may have left the country for some reason, be it the expiration of her visa, or having been forced out by the husband or partner, she would be entitled to protection since she may be an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 2(a) of the DV Act.
“As a sequitur to the above discussion, in the opinion of this court, the question of a „shared household‟ must be decided by a court de-hors the citizenship status of an „aggrieved person‟ who makes an application for relief under section 12 of the DV Act,” the court said.
The court made the observations while dealing with a plea moved by a foreign national. A mahila court had dismissed her application under section 12 of the Act. In appeal, the sessions court, vide the impugned order, directed the concerned SHO to file a report about her citizenship and to verify whether she was an Indian citizen.
Setting aside the sessions court order, Justice Bhambhani said that the foreign national's claim that she had a shared household with the respondent man cannot be decided on the basis of her citizenship status in India.
The court directed the sessions court to decide the woman's appeal against the Mahila Court in accordance with law, without delving into the question of her citizenship status.
Title: BIBI SABERA v. MAJOR DR. CHANDRA SHEKHAR PANT@ HIMMAT KHAN