TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matrimonial home of the Respondent where she was residing in first floor since her marriage. The fact that Respondent is residing in first floor of the premises is not matter of dispute. Even if the house is in the name of the Appellant and that even if we accept the case of the Appellant that Appellant's son Raveen has no share in the house belonging to Appellant, with whom the Respondent was living in the domestic relationship, whether the Respondent is entitled to reside in the premises in question as shared household is the question to be answered. In the impugned judgment, Delhi High Court has refrained from deciding the point as to whether suit property is a shared household on the ground that the application filed Under Section 12 of Act, 2005 by the Respondent is pending. In the suit filed by the Appellant where Respondent has pleaded and claimed that it is shared household and she has right to live and it was on that ground she was resisting the suit for mandatory injunction, the question that whether the suit property is a shared household or not becomes relevant and necessary and the said issue cannot be skipped on the ground that application under D.V. Act is pendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is observed that the Court, on examination of the facts and circumstances, has to exercise its judicial discretion keeping in mind that a judgment on admission is a judgment without trial which permanently denies any remedy to the Defendant by way of an appeal on merits. A similar view was expressed by this Court in the case of S.M. Asif. It is observed and held in paragraph 8 that expression may in Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure suggests that it is discretionary and cannot be claimed as of right. It is further observed that where Defendants raised objections which go to root of the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise discretion Under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure. The power Under Order XII Rule 6 is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In the facts of the present case, the Trial Court ought not to have given judgment Under Order XII Rule 6 on the admission of the Defendant as contained in her application filed Under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. Thus, there are more than one reason for not approving the course of action adopted by Trial Court in passing the judgment Under Order XII Rule 6. We, thus, concur with the view of the Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty is maintainable before a Competent Court. We may further notice that in Sub-section (2) the injunction is shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household save in accordance with procedure established by law . Thus, the provision itself contemplates adopting of any procedure established by law by the Respondent for eviction or exclusion of the aggrieved person from the shared household. Thus, in appropriate case, the competent court can decide the claim in a properly instituted suit by the owner as to whether the women need to be excluded or evicted from the shared household - The High Court in the impugned judgment has also expressed opinion that suit filed by the Plaintiff cannot be held to be non-maintainable with which conclusion we are in agreement. In case, the shared household of a woman is a tenanted/allotted/licensed accommodation where tenancy/allotment/license is in the name of husband, father-in-law or any other relative, the Act, 2005 does not operate against the landlord/lessor/licensor in initiating an appropriate proceedings for eviction of the tenant/allottee/licensee qua the shared household. However, in case the proceedings are due to any collusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther forum - The order passed under D.V. Act whether interim or final shall be relevant and have to be given weight as one of evidence in the civil suit but the evidentiary value of such evidence is limited. The findings arrived therein by the magistrate are although not binding on the Civil Court but the order having passed under the Act, 2005, which is an special Act has to be given its due weight. Thus, following conclusions have been arrived: (i) The pendency of proceedings under Act, 2005 or any order interim or final passed under D.V. Act Under Section 19 regarding right of residence is not an embargo for initiating or continuing any civil proceedings, which relate to the subject matter of order interim or final passed in proceedings under D.V. Act, 2005. (ii) The judgment or order of criminal court granting an interim or final relief Under Section 19 of D.V. Act, 2005 are relevant within the meaning of Section 43 of the Evidence Act and can be referred to and looked into by the civil court. (iii) A civil court is to determine the issues in civil proceedings on the basis of evidence, which has been led by the parties before the civil court. (iv) In the facts of the present ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng marital discord between Raveen and Sneha, in July, 2014, Raveen moved out of the first floor and started staying in the guest room of the ground floor. In the year 2004 a separate kitchen was started by the Respondent in the first floor of the house. Raveen, the husband of the Respondent filed a Divorce Petition on 28.11.2014 Under Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty against the Respondent, Sneha Ahuja which proceeding is said to be still pending. The Respondent, Sneha Ahuja, on 20.11.2015, i.e., after filing of the Divorce Petition, filed an application Under Section 12 of Act, 2005 impleading Raveen Ahuja as Respondent No. 1, Shri Satish Ahuja, Respondent No. 2 and Dr. Prem Kanta Ahuja (mother-in-law of the Respondent), Respondent No. 3. In the complaint it was alleged that Sneha Ahuja has been subjected to severe emotional and mental abuse by the Respondents. In the application Respondent prayed for several orders under Act, 2005. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed passed an interim order on 26.11.2016 to the following effect: The Respondents shall not alienate the al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Defendant to remove herself and her belonging from the first floor of the property and a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant thereby restraining the Defendants, her agents, employees, representatives, etc. from in any manner creating interference or obstruction of the right of the Plaintiff in the suit property and restrain her from causing interference in the peaceful occupation of the Plaintiff in the ground floor of the property. Decree of recovery of damages/mesne profit was also asked for the use and occupation of the suit property of Rs. 1 lac from the date of filing of the suit till the Defendant is removed from the suit property. 8. A written statement was filed by the Defendant pleading that house property was acquired by the Plaintiff through joint family funds and not his self-acquired property. It was pleaded in the written statement that the Plaintiff has suppressed the true and material facts regarding causing physical and mental torture to the Defendant on account of domestic violence etc. by the Plaintiff, his wife and their elder son. 9. The Defendant also referred to filing of complaint case Under Section 12 of A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 13 Code of Civil Procedure in compliance of the order of the Trial Court dated 20.03.2018. 13. The Trial Court proceeded to decide the application Under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure filed by the Plaintiff. By judgment dated 08.04.2019 Trial Court decreed the suit in the following manner: 26. In the light of aforesaid discussion and the observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are sufficient admission to pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff. Consequently, suit of the Plaintiff is decreed for the relief of mandatory and permanent injunction as prayed for. The Defendant is directed to hand over the vacant and physical possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff within 15 days. At the time of announcement of the order, this Court asked Plaintiff whether he wants to pursue his suit for the relief of damages to which he agreed to waive off the said relief. Accordingly, statement of the Plaintiff was also recorded to this effect. Accordingly, the relief of damages stands withdrawn. Decree sheet be prepared for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction accordingly. There is no order as to costs. File be consigned to record room. As requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmission of the Appellant while admitting the title of the Respondent that the suit premises was the joint family property but also losing the site of the DV Act. The directions given by the High Court are contained in the paragraph 56 to the following effect: 56. In these circumstances, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. The matters are remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with the directions given hereinbelow: (i) At the first instance, in all cases where the Respondent's son/the Appellant's husband has not been impleaded, the Trial Court shall direct his impleadment by invoking its suo motu powers Under Order I Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) The Trial Court will then consider whether the Appellant had made any unambiguous admission about the Respondent's ownership rights in respect of the suit premises; if she has and her only defence to being dispossessed there from is her right of residence under the DV Act, then the Trial Court shall, before passing a decree of possession on the wife premise of ownership rights, ensure that in view of the subsisting rights of the Appellant under the DV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s old. It is submitted that the Respondent can claim right to reside only in house which is either joint family property or the husband of the Respondent has a share in it. In the property belonging to father of the husband, she has no right to reside. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on judgment of this Court in S.R. Batra and Anr. v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169, where two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the wife is entitled only to claim a right Under Section 17(1) 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. 20. It is submitted that the complaint under the Act, 2005 filed by the Respondent was only a counter blast to the Divorce Petition dated 28.11.2014 filed by the husband of the Respondent. It is submitted that Sections 17 and 19 of the Act, 2005 do not contemplate a proprietary or ownership right in the shared household for the aggrieved person. Shri Jauhar further submits that her claim for alternate accommodation can be made qua husband and not qua the father-in-law because her relationship ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranted protection and security of residence to woman. Shri Gupta referring to definition of domestic relationship Under Section 2(f) contends that Respondent was in domestic relationship with the Appellant and the Appellant was Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(q) against whom allegation of domestic violence was made in petition Under Section 12. Shri Gupta referring to definition of shared household Under Section 2(s) submits that factum of residence and domestic relationship with the Respondent are the only qualification to fall within the ambit of definition of shared household. Shri Gupta submits that second part of the definition of the shared household is extensive in nature which gives certain example but cannot be said to be exhaustive looking at scheme of the Act. He submits that when 'includes' is used after the term means it is extensive and not exhaustive in nature. The Respondent being in domestic relationship with the Appellant living in the suit property since her marriage and continues to do so till date, the property is shared household where the Appellant is staying. It is submitted that for shared household it is not necessary that aggrieved pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that present was not a case of granting any decree Under Order XII Rule 6, the Respondent having categorically pleaded in the written statement that the suit property was purchased from the joint family fund. Shri Gupta referred to various documents which were brought on the record before the Trial Court indicating that joint family fund was utilised for purchasing the suit property. 24. Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel supporting the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that rights of daughter-in-law are only to the extent of right of the husband/Respondent. He submits that in the definition in Section 2(s) the word 'includes' has to be read means and includes . Referring to term household, Shri Bhushan referred to definition as given by Census of India where common kitchen is a pre-requisite of a household. 25. Ms. Geeta Luthra supporting the submission of Shri Nidhesh Gupta contends that household of father-in-law will be shared household of daughter-in-law where she is living since marriage. Ms. Luthra relies on the judgment of Delhi Court in Eveneet Singh v. Prashant Chaudhri, Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in Evenee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India had marked the step towards the transformation of the status of the women in this country. 30. The domestic violence in this country is rampant and several women encounter violence in some form or the other or almost every day, however, it is the least reported form of cruel behavior. A woman resigns her fate to the never ending cycle of enduring violence and discrimination as a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother, a partner or a single woman in her lifetime. This non-retaliation by women coupled with the absence of laws addressing women's issues, ignorance of the existing laws enacted for women and societal attitude makes the women vulnerable. The reason why most cases of domestic violence are never reported is due to the social stigma of the society and the attitude of the women themselves, where women are expected to be subservient, not just to their male counterparts but also to the male's relatives. 31. Till the year 2005, the remedies available to a victim of domestic violence were limited. The women either had to go to the civil court for a decree of divorce or initiate prosecution in the criminal court for the offence punishable Under Section 498-A of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Considering that Articles 2, 5, 11, 12 and 16 of the Convention require the States parties to act to protect women against violence of any kind occurring within the family, at the work place or in any other area of social life. 34. Even before the Act, 2005 was enacted, Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji in B.R. Mehta v. Atma Devi and Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 183 has noted that right of occupation in matrimonial home which is granted under Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967 in England are not granted in India though it may be that with the change of situation and complex problems arising, it is high time to give the wife or the spouse a right of occupation. In paragraph 6 following was laid down: 6. ...................In England the rights of the spouses be it the husband or the wife to the matrimonial home are now governed by the provisions of Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967. Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 22 page 650 deals with the rights of occupation in matrimonial home and paragraph 1047 deals with and provides that where one spouse is entitled to occupy a dwelling house by virtue of any estate or interest or contract or by virtue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, etc. (1) This Section applies if-- (a) one spouse or civil partner is entitled to occupy a dwelling-house by virtue of-- (i) a beneficial estate or interest or contract; or (ii) any enactment giving the right to remain in occupation; and (b) the other spouse or civil partner is not so entitled. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Part, has the following rights home rights -- (a) if in occupation, a right not to be evicted or excluded from the dwelling-house or any part of it by except with the leave of the court given by an order Under Section 33; (b) if not in occupation, a right with the leave of the court so given to enter into and occupy the dwelling-house. (3) If is entitled under this Section to occupy a dwelling-house or any part of a dwelling-house, any payment or tender made or other thing done by in or towards satisfaction of any liability of in respect of rent, mortgage payments or other outgoings affecting the dwelling-house is, whether or not it is made or done in pursuance of an order Under Section 40, as good as if made or done by. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 37. The right of occupation of matrimonial home, which was not so far part of the statutory law in India came to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that interpretation out of two alternatives which advance the cause--the cause of the derelicts. 40. Enactment of Act, 2005 is another step in the same direction. This Court in Manmohan Attavar v. Neelam Manmohan Attavar, (2017) 8 SCC 550 noticed that Act, 2005 has been enacted to create an entitlement in favour of the woman of the right of residence. In paragraph 15, following was observed: 15. A reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that it creates an entitlement in favour of the woman of the right of residence under the shared household irrespective of her having any legal interests in the same. The direction, inter alia, can include an order restraining dispossession or a direction to remove himself on being satisfied that domestic violence had taken place. 41. Now, we proceed to notice certain provisions of Act, 2005, which are relevant for determination of the issues as arisen in the present appeal. According to Section 2(a) aggrieved person means any person, 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 by the Respondent. Domestic Relationship has been defined in Section 2(f) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liefs under this Act: Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider. (2) The relief sought for Under Sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the Respondent: Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under such decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, be executable for the balance amount, if any, left after such set off. (3) Every application Under Sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share in the suit premises nor suit premises is a joint family property. In support of his submission, he relies on judgment of this Court in S.R. Batra and Ors. v. Taruna Batra (supra). 49. The definition of shared household given Under Section 2(s) as noticed above beginning with expression 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..... The Section uses both the expressions means and includes . A Three Judge bench judgment of this Court in Bharat Coop. Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. v. Coop. Bank Employees Union, (2007) 4 SCC 685 had occasion to consider Section 2(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which Section used both the words means and includes . Explaining both the expressions, following was laid down in paragraph 23: 23. ...It is trite to say that when in the definition Clause given in any statute the word means is used, what follows is intended to speak exhaustively. When the word means is used in the definition, to borrow the words of Lord Esher, M.R. in Gough v. Gough [(1891) 2 QB 665] it is a hard-and-fast definition and no meaning other than t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel, i.e., The South Gujarat Roofing Tiles Manufacturers Association and Anr. v. The State of Gujarat and Anr., (1976) 4 SCC 601. Shri Bhushan's submission is that use of expression includes in Section 2(s) has to be read as means. He placed reliance on following observations made by this Court in paragraph 5: 5. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ...Though include is generally used in interpretation clauses as a word of enlargement, in some cases the context might suggest a different intention. Pottery is an expression of very wide import, embracing all objects made of clay and hardened by heat. If it had been the legislature's intention to bring within the entry all possible articles of pottery, it was quite unnecessary to add an explanation. We have found that the explanation could not possibly have been introduced to extend the meaning of potteries industry or the articles listed therein added ex abundanti cautela. It seems to us therefore that the legislature did not intend everything that the potteries industry turns out to be covered by the entry. What then could be the purpose of the explanation. The explanation says that, for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation Clause declares that they shall include. But the word 'include' is susceptible of another construction, which may become imperative, if the context of the Act is sufficient to show that it was not merely employed for the purpose of adding to the natural significance of the words or expressions defined. It may be equivalent to 'mean and include', and in that case it may afford an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expressions. 16. Dilworth [1899 AC 99] and few other decisions came up for consideration in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. [(1987) 1 SCC 424] and this Court summarised the legal position that (Peerless case [(1987) 1 SCC 424], SCC pp. 449-50, para 32) inclusive definition by the legislature is used: 32. ... (1) to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases so as to take in the ordinary, popular and natural sense of the words and also the sense which the statute wishes to attribute to it; (2) to include meanings about which there might be some dispute; or (3) to bring under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggrieved person or the Respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and (b) 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. In the above definition, two expressions, namely, aggrieved person and Respondent have occurred. From the above definition, following is clear: (i) it is not requirement of law that aggrieved person may either own the premises jointly or singly or by tenanting it jointly or singly; (ii) the household may belong to a 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; and (iii) the shared household may either be owned or tenanted by the Respondent singly or jointly. 56. Now, we revert back to the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the shared household is that household which belongs to joint family of which husband is a member or husband has share in the shared household. He finds support for his submission by the judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 59. This Court also noticed Sections 17 and 19 and the argument of Respondent that household is a shared household since aggrieved person had lived there in a domestic relationship. Argument of the Respondent was noticed in paragraph 24 in following words: 24. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Smt. Taruna Batra stated that the definition of shared household includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship. He contended that since admittedly the Respondent had lived in the property in question in the past, hence the said property is her shared household. 60. This Court expressed its dis-agreement with the submission and made following observations in paragraphs 25 to 30: 25. We cannot agree with this submission. 26. If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband's fath ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all become shared household, shall lead to chaos and would be absurd. The expression at any stage has lived occurs in Section 2(s) after the words where the person aggrieved lives . The use of the expression at any stage has lived immediately after words person aggrieved lives has been used for object different to what has been apprehended by this Court in paragraph 26. The expression at any stage has lived has been used to protect the women from denying the benefit of right to live in a shared household on the ground that on the date when application is filed, she was excluded from possession of the house or temporarily absent. The use of the expression at any stage has lived is for the above purpose and not with the object that wherever the aggrieved person has lived with the relatives of husband, all such houses shall become shared household, which is not the legislative intent. The shared household is contemplated to be the household, which is a dwelling place of aggrieved person in present time. When we look into the different kinds of orders or reliefs, which can be granted on an application filed by aggrieved person, all orders contemplate providing protection to the women i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead with Sections 17 and 19 of Act, 2005 grants an entitlement in favour of the woman of the right of residence under the shared household irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same or not. 64. In paragraph 29 of the judgment, this Court in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (supra) held that 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 definition of shared household as noticed in Section 2(s) does not indicate that a shared household shall be one which belongs to or taken on rent by the husband. We have noticed the definition of Respondent under the Act. The Respondent in a proceeding under Domestic Violence Act can be any relative of the husband. In event, the shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are satisfied and the said house will become a shared household. We are of the view that this Court in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (supra) although noticed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 that maintenance of a wife, during subsistence of marriage, is on the husband and on the applicant to maintain the daughter-in-law arises only when the husband has died. In paragraphs 21 and 22 following was laid down: 21. Maintenance of a married wife, during subsistence of marriage, is on the husband. It is a personal obligation. The obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law arises only when the husband has died. Such an obligation can also be met from the properties of which the husband is a co-sharer and not otherwise. For invoking the said provision, the husband must have a share in the property. The property in the name of the mother-in-law can neither be a subject-matter of attachment nor during the lifetime of the husband, his personal liability to maintain his wife can be directed to be enforced against such property. 22. Wholly uncontentious issues have been raised before us on behalf of Sonalben (wife). It is well settled that apparent state of affairs of state shall be taken as real state of affairs. It is not for an owner of the property to establish that it is his self-acquired property and the onus w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehold had arisen in the above case and the above case is entirely different from the present case, the above case arose out of criminal proceedings on the basis of complaint filed by the Respondent against the Appellant. The above judgment in no manner supports the case of the Appellant. Further in the above case, this Court relied on judgment of S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (supra), we have observed above that S.R. Mehta does not lay down a correct law. 71. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on few judgments of Delhi High Court in support of his submission. Delhi High Court in Eveneet Singh v. Prashant Chaudhri had considered the provisions of Act, 2005 and also the definition of shared household. In paragraphs 16 and 17 following was laid down: 16. The definition of shared household emphasizes the factum of a domestic relationship and no investigation into the ownership of the said household is necessary, as per the definition. Even if an inquiry is made into the aspect of ownership of the household, the definition casts a wide enough net. It is couched in inclusive terms and is not in any way, exhaustive (S. Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala, 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 883). It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... table right to possession) in those premises. This is because the premises would be a shared household . The daughter-in-law, in these circumstances is entitled to protection from dispossession, though her husband never had any ownership rights in the premises. The right is not dependent on title, but the mere factum of residence. Thus, even if the mother-in-law is a tenant, then, on that ground, or someone having equity, she can be injuncted from dispossessing the daughter in law. In case the mother in law is the owner, the obligation to allow the daughter in law to live in the shared household, as long as the matrimonial relationship between her and the husband subsists, continues. The only exception is the proviso to 19(1) (b), which exempts women from being directed to remove themselves from the shared household. No such exception has been carved out for the other reliefs Under Section 19, especially in respect of protection orders. Had the Parliament intended to create another exception in favor of women, it would have done so. This omission was deliberate and in consonance with the rest of the scheme of the Act. There can be other cases of domestic relationships such as an or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n care to calibrate and balance the interests of the family members of the Respondent and mitigated the rigour by expressly providing under the provision to Section 19(1) that whilst adjudicating an application preferred by the aggrieved person it would not be open to the Court to pass directions for removing a female member of the Respondents family from the shared household . Furthermore, in terms of Section 19(1)(f), the Court may direct the Respondent to secure same level of accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require. 59. The seemingly 'radical' provisions comprised in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 must be understood and appreciated in light of the prevalent culture and ethos in our society. 60. The broad and inclusive definition of the term 'shared household' in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is in consonance with the family patterns in India, where married couple continue to live with their parents in homes owned by parents. 75. The Delhi High Court in the above case has rightly considered the concept of shared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property. (2) Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand. (3) The courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant. (4) The protection of the court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or licence agreement in his favour. (5) The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession. 80. There cannot be any dispute to the preposition of law as laid down by this Court in above case. The above case arose out of a suit filed by the Respondent for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the Appellant. The Respondent was brother of the Appellant. Suit was decreed by the Trial Court, and appeal against which judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d judgment, Delhi High Court has refrained from deciding the point as to whether suit property is a shared household on the ground that the application filed Under Section 12 of Act, 2005 by the Respondent is pending. In the suit filed by the Appellant where Respondent has pleaded and claimed that it is shared household and she has right to live and it was on that ground she was resisting the suit for mandatory injunction, the question that whether the suit property is a shared household or not becomes relevant and necessary and the said issue cannot be skipped on the ground that application under D.V. Act is pending. In the regular suit, which has been filed by the Appellant, the plea of Defendant that suit property is her shared household and she has right to residence could have been very well gone into by virtue of Section 26, which we shall further deal a little later. 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 daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the evening of their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be exercised to deny the valuable right of a Defendant to contest the claim. In short, the discretion should be used only when there is a clear admission which can be acted upon. It is further observed and held that admission should be categorical. It should be a conscious and deliberate act of the party making it, showing an intention to be bound by it. 88. A similar view was expressed by this Court in the case of S.M. Asif (supra). It is observed and held in paragraph 8 that expression may in Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure suggests that it is discretionary and cannot be claimed as of right. It is further observed that where Defendants raised objections which go to root of the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise discretion Under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure. 89. In this context, we need to notice a few parts of pleadings of both the parties as disclosed in plaint and the written statement. The Plaintiffs have filed the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction claiming to be absolute owner of the suit property where Defendant was admitted to be in occupation of two bed rooms with few amenities on first floor of the property. The Plaintiff pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Volume No. 951 pages 54 to 56. As such, the Plaintiff having acquired the absolute ownership of the entire property bearing No. D-1077, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025 is entitled and competent to file the present suit seeking removal of the Defendant from the portion of the first floor of the suit property. 90. A written statement was filed by the Defendant where she claimed that after marriage of the Defendant on 04.03.1995, she is residing in the house. It was further pleaded that the shared household was acquired by the Plaintiff through joint family funds and it is not his self acquired property. Paragraphs 1, 4 and 7 of the written statement are as follows: 1. That a bare perusal of the documents filed alongwith the plaint and even otherwise it is amply evident that the Plaintiff as per his own version became the owner of the suit property bearing No D-1077, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025 only in the year 2003 The marriage of the answering Defendant was solemnized on 4/3/1995 and the Defendant started residing in the joint shared household since then. Therefore the right of the Defendant is prior in point of time that of the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that wife of the Plaintiff has been subjected to various threats and violence in the hands of the Defendant on several occasions. On the other hand, the Defendant does not dispute that the house was recorded in the name of the Plaintiff and in her application filed under the Domestic Violence Act, she stated that Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property but in the written statement filed in the suit, she pleaded that house has been purchased by joint family funds. The Trial Court on the basis of admission made by the Defendant in her application filed Under Section 12 of the D.V. Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate that the Plaintiff is owner of the house has decreed the suit Under Section 12(6). 92. Even if for argument's sake, we proceed on the basis that the Plaintiff is the sole owner of the house, whether on the aforesaid ground, the Trial Court could have decreed the suit Under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure without adverting to the defence which was taken by the Defendant to resist the suit is the question to be considered. Section 26 of the Act, 2005 contains heading Reliefs in other suits and legal proceedings . Section 26, which is relevant for the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is to the following effect: 16. As noted above, the only question to be answered in this appeal is as to whether the counter claim filed by the Appellant seeking right of residence in accordance with Section 19 of the 2005 Act in a suit filed by the Respondent, her father-in-law under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 is entertainable or not. Whether the provisions of the 1887 Act bar entertainment of such counterclaim, is the moot question to be answered.................. 94. After noticing the provision of Section 26 of the Act, this Court made following observations in paragraphs 23 and 24: 23. Section 26 of the Act is a special provision which has been enacted in the enactment. Although, Chapter IV of the Act containing Section 12 to Section 29 contains the procedure for obtaining orders of reliefs by making application before the Magistrate whereas steps taken by the Magistrate and different categories of reliefs could be granted as noted in Sections 18 to 22 and certain other provisions. Section 26 provides that any relief available Under Sections 18 to 22 may also be sought in any legal proceedings, before a civil court, family court or a criminal court, affecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant as raised in her counterclaim shall be nothing but denying consideration of claim as contemplated by Section 26 of the 2005 Act which shall lead to multiplicity of proceedings, which cannot be the object and purpose of the 2005 Act. 41. We, thus, are of the considered opinion that the counterclaim filed by the Appellant before Judge, Small Cause Court in Civil Suit No. 77 of 2013 was fully entertainable and the courts below committed error in refusing to consider such claim. 96. In view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the above case, the claim of the Defendant that suit property is shared household and she has right to reside in the house ought to have been considered by the Trial Court and non-consideration of the claim/defence is nothing but defeating the right, which is protected by Act, 2005. 97. We have noticed the law laid down by this Court in S.M. Asif v. Virender Kumar Bajaj (supra) where this Court in paragraph 8 has laid down following: 8. The words in Order 12 Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure may and make such order ... show that the power Under Order 12 Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Judgment on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clude females also. 101. The Defendant in her application filed Under Section 12 on 20.11.2015 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate impleaded Satish Chandra Ahuja as Respondent No. 2. Thus, in the domestic violence proceedings initiated by the Defendant, Plaintiff was the Respondent. As noted above, Under Section 26 of the Act, 2005 any relief available Under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceedings, before a Civil Court. The Defendant in her written statement claimed that she is entitled to reside in the premises of suit property it being her shared household. 102. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that in the suit in question the Defendant has not sought for any relief Under Section 19. It is true that no separate application or separate prayer has been made by the Defendant in the suit for grant of any relief Under Section 19 but in her pleadings she has resisted the claim of Plaintiff on the ground that she has a right to reside in the suit property it being her shared household. Thus, the question whether the suit premises is shared household of the Defendant and she has right in the shared household so as the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehold, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. This right has been expressly granted to every woman in domestic relationship to fulfill the purpose and objective of the Act. Although under the statute regulating personal law the woman has right to maintenance, every wife has right of maintenance which may include right of residence, the right recognized by Sub-section (1) of Section 17 is new and higher right conferred on every woman. 106. The right is to be implemented by an order Under Section 19, on an application filed Under Sub-section (1) of Section 12. Sub-section (2) of Section 17, however, contains an exception in the right granted by Sub-section (2), i.e., save in accordance with the procedure established by law . Sub-section (2) of Section 17, thus, contemplates that aggrieved person can be evicted or excluded from the shared household in accordance with the procedure established by law. What is the meaning and extent of expression save in accordance with the procedure established by law is a question which has come up for consideration in this appeal. Whether the suit filed by the Plaintiff for mandatory and permanent injunction again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its own procedure for disposal of an application Under Section 12 or Under Sub-section (2) of Section 23. 111. The Rules have been framed under the Act, 2005, namely The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 . Rule 5 deals with Domestic Incident Report which is to be submitted by protection officer in Form I. The Form I is part of Rule which contains details in various columns to enable the Magistrate to take appropriate decision. Rule 6 provides that every application of the aggrieved person Under Section 12 shall be in Form-II or as nearly as possible thereto. Form-II is again part of Rule which contains various details including orders required, residence orders, Under Section 19, monetary relief Under Section 20, details of previous litigation, if any, and other details to enable the Magistrate to take appropriate decision. Rule 6 Sub-rule (4) provides that for obtaining an interim ex-parte order Under Section 23, an affidavit is to be filed in Form-III. The Form-III is an affidavit of an aggrieved person or the person filing affidavit on behalf of his ward, daughter, etc. The Act and the Rules thus provide for a procedure and manner of filing an application fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In our opinion, which we would buttress by reasons stated shortly hereinafter, ordinarily a party unsuccessful in proceedings Under Section 145 ought to sue for recovery of possession seeking a decree or order for restoration of possession. However, a party though unsuccessful in proceedings Under Section 145 may still be able to successfully establish before the competent court that it was actually in possession of the property and is entitled to retain the same by making out a strong case demonstrating the finding of the Magistrate to be apparently incorrect. 114. This Court further held that finding recorded by the Magistrate Under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure does not bind when the matter comes for adjudication before competent court. This Court explained expression until evicted therefrom in due course of law mean any court which has jurisdictional competence to decide the question of title or rights to the property or entitlement to possession . In paragraph 17 of the judgment following was observed: 17. ..................The words 'until evicted therefrom in due course of law' as occurring in Sub-section (6) of Section 145' mean the eviction of the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the civil court binds the criminal court. An order passed by the Executive Magistrate in proceedings Under Sections 145/146 of the Code is an order by a criminal court and that too based on a summary enquiry. The order is entitled to respect and weight before the competent court at the interlocutory stage. At the stage of final adjudication of rights, which would be on the evidence adduced before the court, the order of the Magistrate is only one out of several pieces of evidence. (4)............... 116. Drawing the analogy from the above case, we are of the opinion that the expression save in accordance with the procedure established by law , in Section 17(2) of the Act, 2005 contemplates the proceedings in court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, suit for mandatory and permanent injunction/eviction or possession by the owner of the property is maintainable before a Competent Court. We may further notice that in Sub-section (2) the injunction is shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household save in accordance with procedure established by law . Thus, the provision itself contemplates adopting of any procedure established by law by the Respondent for eviction or exclusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. (1992) 2 SCC 524. Latter judgment of this Court discussing judgment of Razia Begum has laid down following in paragraphs 10 and 12: 10. The power of the Court to add parties Under Order I Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, came up for consideration before this Court in Razia Begum (supra). In that case it was pointed out that the Courts in India have not treated the matter of addition of parties as raising any question of the initial jurisdiction of the Court and that it is firmly established as a result of judicial decisions that in order that a person may be added as a party to a suit, he should have a direct interest in the subject-matter of the litigation whether it be the questions relating to moveable or Immovable property. 12. Sinha, J. speaking for the majority said that a declaratory judgment in respect of a disputed status will be binding not only upon parties actually before the Court but also upon persons claiming through them respectively. The Court laid down the law that in a suit relating to property in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remanded back to the Trial Court, Trial Court's discretion ought not to have been fettered by issuing such a general direction as noted above. The general direction issued in paragraph 56(i) is capable of being misinterpreted. Whether the husband of an aggrieved person in a particular case needs to be added as Plaintiff or Defendant in the suit is a matter, which need to be considered by the Court taking into consideration all aspects of the matter. We are, thus, of the view that direction in paragraph 56(i) be not treated as a general direction to the Courts to implead in all cases the husband of an aggrieved person and it is the Trial Court which is to exercise the jurisdiction Under Order I Rule 10. The direction in paragraph 56(i) are, thus, need to be read in the manner as indicated above. 122. Now, coming to the present case, we have already observed that although husband of the Defendant was not a necessary party but in view of the pleadings in the written statement, the husband was a proper party. Question No. 8 123. While noticing the facts and events of the present case, we have noticed that in complaint filed by the Respondent Under Section 12 of Act, 2005, an interi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judgment of Civil Court. What is the effect of such conflict in the decision is another related issue which needs to be answered? Whether the principle of res judicata can be pressed in respect to any decision inter parties in respect to criminal and civil proceedings? 126. The applicability of principle of res judicata is well known and are governed by provisions of Section 11 Code of Civil Procedure, which principle also has been held to be applicable in other proceedings. There can be no applicability of principle of res judicata when orders of Criminal Courts are pitted against proceedings in Civil Court. With regard to criminal proceedings Code of Criminal Procedure also contains provision that a person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence nor on the same facts for any other offence. The principle enumerated in Section 300 Code of Criminal Procedure may be relevant with respect to two criminal proceedings against same Accused, which might have no relevance in reference to one crimin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in Sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this Act. 44. Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved.-- Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant Under Section 40, 41 or 42, and which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion. 128. Section 40 renders admissible judgments which operate as placing any bar on a suit or trial as plea of res judicata or otherwise under some Rule of law. The scheme of D.V. Act, 2005 does not contemplate that any judgment and order passed Under Section 19 of the said Act prevents any court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding of trial; Section 41 deals with relevancy of certain judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty and insolvency jurisdiction which are conclusive not only against party but against all the world. This Section enumerates four classes of judgments. A decree of Civil Court in ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the service provider. Even as per Section 36 of the D.V. Act, the provisions of the D.V. Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. Even the magistrate can also pass an interim order as per Section 23 of the D.V. Act. 132. Considering Section 12(2) and Section 26(3), read with Section 25(2), even the Legislature envisaged the two independent proceedings, one before the magistrate under the D.V. Act and another proceeding other than the proceedings under the D.V. Act. 133. Even the Civil Court has to take into consideration the relief already granted by the Magistrate in the proceedings under the D.V. Act and vice versa. 134. However, at the same time, it is to be observed that in a case any relief available Under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 is sought by aggrieved person in any legal proceedings before a civil court, family court or a criminal court including the residence order, the aggrieved person has to satisfy by leading evidence that domestic violence has taken place and only on the basis of the evidence led on being satisfied that the domestic violence has taken place, the relief available Under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complainant. One of the questions, which arose for consideration before this Court was that which proceeding should be stayed, i.e., prosecution Under Section 193 or suit for damages for wrongful confinement. In the above context, following observations were made by the Constitution Bench in paragraph 15: 15. As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast Rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment. 140. In the above case, this Court had observed that possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts was not a relevant consideration. This Court had further observed that The law envisages such an eventuality ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K.G. Premshankar v. Inspector of Police and Anr., (2002) 8 SCC 87 in which case this Court had occasion to consider the effect of decision of civil court on the criminal proceeding. This Court had also occasion to consider Sections 40 to 43 of Indian Evidence Act in the said judgment. The Three Judge Bench was answering the reference made on 09.11.1998 by which an earlier judgment of this Court in V.M. Shah v. State of Maharashtra (1995) 5 SCC 767 required a reconsideration. This Court in V.M. Shah's case had laid down that the finding recorded by the criminal court stands superseded by the finding recorded by the civil court thereby the finding of civil court got precedence over the finding recorded by the criminal court. Before this Court in K.G. Premshankar case prosecution was launched against the Appellants, cognizance of which was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Appellant filed a proceeding Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the prosecution, which was rejected, against which matter was taken to this Court. The complainant had also filed a suit for damages for the alleged act before the civil court, which suit was pending in the trial court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact when the question is whether such court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial. 144. This Court noticing the Constitution Bench judgment in M.S. Sheriff (supra) and few other judgments had recorded its conclusion in paragraph 30 to the following effect: 30. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is -- (1) the previous judgment which is final can be relied upon as provided Under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act; (2) in civil suits between the same parties, principle of res judicata may apply; (3) in a criminal case, Section 300 Code of Criminal Procedure makes provision that once a person is convicted or acquitted, he may not be tried again for the same offence if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied; (4) if the criminal case and the civil proceedings are for the same cause, judgment of the civil court would be relevant if conditions of any of Sections 40 to 43 are satisfied, but it cannot be said that the same would be conclusive except as provided in Section 41. Section 41 provides which judgment would b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistrate found one of the parties to be in possession or fictional possession of the disputed property on the date of the preliminary order. The reasoning recorded by the Magistrate or other findings arrived at by him have no relevance and are not admissible in evidence before the competent court and the competent court is not bound by the findings arrived at by the Magistrate even on the question of possession though, as between the parties, the order of the Magistrate would be evidence of possession. The finding recorded by the Magistrate does not bind the court. The competent court has jurisdiction and would be justified in arriving at a finding inconsistent with the one arrived at by the Executive Magistrate even on the question of possession. Sections 145 and 146 only provide for the order of the Executive Magistrate made under any of the two provisions being superseded by and giving way to the order or decree of a competent court. The effect of the Magistrate's order is that burden is thrown on the unsuccessful party to prove its possession or entitlement to possession before the competent court. 21. The order of the Magistrate Under Sections 145/146 of the Code is not on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt is admissible for a limited purpose. After noticing the provisions of Sections 40 to 43 of Indian Evidence Act, this Court laid down following in paragraph 13: 13. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX A judgment in a criminal case, thus, is admissible for a limited purpose. Relying only on or on the basis thereof, a civil proceeding cannot be determined, but that would not mean that it is not admissible for any purpose whatsoever. 150. It was further held that a decision in a criminal case is not binding in a civil case. In paragraph 15, following was laid down: 15. A civil proceeding as also a criminal proceeding may go on simultaneously. No statute puts an embargo in relation thereto. A decision in a criminal case is not binding on a civil court. In M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras [AIR 1954 SC 397], a Constitution Bench of this Court was seized with a question as to whether a civil suit or a criminal case should be stayed in the event both are pending. It was opined that the criminal matter should be given precedence. In regard to the possibility of conflict in decisions, it was held that the law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration. 153. We take an example to further illustrate the point. In the plaint of suit giving rise to this appeal, the Plaintiff has pleaded that the wife of the Plaintiff has been subjected to various threat and violence in the hands of the Defendant on several occasions. In event, the suit is filed by wife of the Plaintiff against the Defendant for permanent injection and also praying for reliefs Under Section 19 [except Section 19(1)(b)]. The suit be fully maintainable and the prayers in the suit can be covered by the reliefs as contemplated by Section 19 read with Section 26 of the Act, 2005. 154. By a written statement, the Defendant is sure to resist the suit on the ground that she had already filed an application Under Section 12 where Plaintiff Dr. Prem kant Ahuja (mother-in-law of the Defendant) is one of the Respondent and she may also place reliance on the interim order dated 26.11.2016 restraining the Respondents which included Dr. Prem Kant Ahuja from dispossessing the applicant except without obtaining an order of competent Court. The order dated 26.11.2016 which was pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be of a civil court or criminal court both in civil or criminal proceedings. 157. From the above discussions, we arrive at following conclusions: (i) The pendency of proceedings under Act, 2005 or any order interim or final passed under D.V. Act Under Section 19 regarding right of residence is not an embargo for initiating or continuing any civil proceedings, which relate to the subject matter of order interim or final passed in proceedings under D.V. Act, 2005. (ii) The judgment or order of criminal court granting an interim or final relief Under Section 19 of D.V. Act, 2005 are relevant within the meaning of Section 43 of the Evidence Act and can be referred to and looked into by the civil court. (iii) A civil court is to determine the issues in civil proceedings on the basis of evidence, which has been led by the parties before the civil court. (iv) In the facts of the present case, suit filed in civil court for mandatory and permanent injunction was fully maintainable and the issues raised by the Appellant as well as by the Defendant claiming a right Under Section 19 were to be addressed and decided on the basis of evidence, which is led by the parties in the suit. 158. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
