SEMINAR AND DISCUSSION SOCIETY
SEMINAR AND DISCUSSION SOCIETY
CAMPUS LAW CENTRE
Prof (Dr.) Usha Tandon
Convener
Convener
Synopsis
By
Padmini Ghosh
S R Batra vs Taruna Batra AIR 2007 SC 1118
The Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), provides civil remedies to women who
are subjected to domestic violence. The law was envisaged to bridge the gap in
the then existing legal structure and also to provide immediate relief to women
who were subjected to violence. In S R Batra vs Taruna Batra the SC dealt with the issue of right of
residence under the PWDVA. The counsel for Taruna relied on Section 17(9) of
the Act to further the claim of the wife. He argued that she had a right to
reside in the “shared household”. It was in this context that the court decided
to interpret the expression “shared household” under Section 2(s) and “right to
reside” under Section 17 of the PWDVA.
The SC while
interpreting the same held that the wife is 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.” Consequently, the court
has excluded all self-acquired property of the in-laws from the purview of the
shared household. By doing so, the court has contradicted Section 2 (s) of the
law, which states,
‘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…irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any
right, title or interest in the shared household.’
The right of residence
generally either vests in those owning the premises or in those in whose names
the premises are leased. It has been observed that “in most cases, women are
not the owners of property and this essential propertylessness of women is the
most significant factor in contributing to (the) fear of desertion in India” . Hence,
the PWDVA expressly states that ownership of shared household is irrelevant for
the question of the woman’s right to reside in the shared household. However,
the SC, through the Batra judgment has drastically reduced the scope of the
law. Originally according to the Act, the ownership of the property had been
irrelevant and immaterial to decide the issue of right to residence at the
trial court of the aggrieved woman. The law as it stands now after the judgment
of the court is effectively dependent upon the question, “who owns the
property”?
In order to provide
relief to the women, it has become necessary for the trial courts to adopt
innovative arguments, i e, find ways to distinguish facts from the Batra
judgment. Consequently, where the judges do not do so and strictly adhere to
the judgment, the aggrieved women fail to get the required relief. Hence
whether or not an aggrieved woman gets the relief promised by the Act depends
entirely on the pro activeness and sensitivity of the judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment