The right of the married woman

In Satish Chander Ahuja Versus Sneha Ahuja in a civil appeal, the Supreme Court on October 15, 2020 laid down that wife has the legal right to stay in the shared household, where she stays in the domestic relationship, that is, in her in-law’s house irrespective of the fact whether the husband is member or has share in the household in the context of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

If we examine how the Domestic Violence Act has evolved, we get to know that the Act is a remedy in civil law which protects women from being victims of domestic violence. And to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society, the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005, was enacted. Also, if a woman is subjected to cruelty by husband or relatives of the husband, the same is an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

What does this Act prescribe?

Section 2(s) of the Act defines a shared household as a household where aggrieved person is presently staying or has stayed either singly, or jointly, owns house or tenanted, is a joint family house. This, irrespective of whether aggrieved person has right, title or interest.

The underlying ingredient here is “stay”. According to Section 17, (i) Every women shall have a right to reside in a shared household irrespective of having any right, title and beneficial interest in the property; (ii) Aggrieved person shall not be either evicted or excluded from the shared household except in accordance with the law.

What was the earlier view of the Supreme Court with regard to 'shared household right of the wife’?

In S R Batra (2007), Justice Markandeya Katju held that the wife is entitled only to claim a right under Section 17(1) to residence in a shared household. That 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 in which husband is member.

In B R Mehta’s judgement in 1987, the Supreme Court visualised the act of violence happening with the women in domestic life and thus gave a very meticulous observation: “...It may be that with change of situation and complex problems arising, it is high time to give the wife or the spouse a right of occupation in a truly matrimonial home, in case of marriage treating up or in the case of strained relationship husband and the wife.”

Justice Sabyasachi Mukherji and Justice G L Oza visualised the need to provide the right of occupation to married women in view of the complex and strange situation in a matrimonial relationship. This resulted in the 2005 Act whose preamble said: “An act to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the constitution, (women) who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

The legal turbulence created by the S R Batra judgement stood corrected and settled by the pronouncement in the case of Satish Ahuja case by a three-member bench consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice M R Shah.

The bench dealt with the issues relating to the (i) Meaning of shared household: does it belong to joint family; or the household where the husband of the aggrieved party has the share.

The verdict of the Supreme Court under (i) Section 2(s) read with Section 17 and 19 of the Act granted 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.

The observation in S R Batra that Section 2(s) that `shared household’ is not happily worded which may lead to chaos in society, has been declared bad in law. It was not approved by the Supreme Court in the Satish Chandra Ahuja judgement where it held that shared household meant the household where the woman resides in a domestic relationship even though the house can be of husband or relative of the husband.

The object and purpose of the Act is to grant the right of residence to the aggrieved person in a shared household and thus a married woman has right to stay in the domestic household of her husband and her-in-laws, irrespective of the fact that the husband owns the house or has share in it.

In conclusion, it can be said that by upholding the right of residence for the woman in the shared household, where she stays in a domestic relationship (irrespective of the nature of the property), the apex court re-affirmed the honour of the married woman.

It further sent a clear message to the society that institution of marriage is sacrosanct and that institution can be preserved when the woman is not allowed to remain vulnerable in any troubled circumstances in relation to matrimonial discord.

The judgement is an impetus to married women who underwent domestic violence and is a legal command which secures and strengthens the right of residence of the married women in the shared household where she stays.

(The writer is Advocate-on-Record in the Supreme Court of India)