Concept of shared household in Domestic Violence Act clumsy:SC

New Delhi, Dec 19 (UNI) In its first judgement on recently notified Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, the Supreme Court has said section 2(s) of the Act which gives right of residence to a married woman in a shared household is not properly worded and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but ''we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society.'' A Bench, comprising Justices S B Sinha and Markandey Katju, in a judgement dated December 15 had ruled that ''as regards section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the 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 11-page ruling came on an appeal filed by S R Batra and his wife against the order of Delhi High Court following the petition of Taruna Batra, wife of Amit Batra.

The apex court further said, ''The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which he is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant number two, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it can not be called a shared household.'' Amit Batra filed a divorce petition against his wife and as a counter the wife filed a case under sections 406(criminal breach of trust)/498A (harrasment for dowry)/506(criminal intimidation) and 34(common intention) of the IPC and got arrested her in laws, her husband and her married sister in law.

Amit later shifted to his parents' residence and she also shifted to the same place and filed an application for injunction which was dismissed by the trial court, but the High Court reversed the order of the trial court.

The apex court disagreeing with the High Court said, ''In our opinion, the above observation is merely an expression of hope and it does not lay down any law. It is only the legislature which can create a law and not the court. The courts do not legislate and whatever maybe the personal view of a judge, he cannot create or amend any law and he must maintain judicial restraint.'' The court also rejected the contention of the counsel for the wife that in view of the Act, his client cannot be dispossessed from the second floor of the property, in question, which is situated at Ashok Vihar, New Delhi.

Justice Katju writing the judgement for the Bench said, ''We are of the opinion that the house in question cannot be said to be a shared household within the meaning of section 2(s) of the act. 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. Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd. It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absrdity should not be accepted,'' UNI AKS/SC KD PM1803