Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: protection of women from domestic violence act 2005 section 17 right to reside in a shared household Page 1 of about 339 results (0.172 seconds)

Purinma Sahni Vs. Rati Sahni and Another

Court : Delhi

..... division bench, such a view was buttressed by the reading of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 as a whole, wherein even under section 19 (1) (a) of the act, right of residence of a wife in a shared household where she had no legal or equitable interest was recognized. 13. ..... held that in light of the judgment of the supreme court in taruna batra s case (supra) a wife could claim a right of residence under section 2(s) of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 in the premises where she stayed along with her husband as a joint family with the owners of the premises, regardless of whether she or the husband had any right, title or interest in the shared household . ..... learned single judge of this court, vide order dated march 21, 2014 held that the property at b-44, vishal enclave was not shared household under section 2(s) of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005; that surender kaur was the sole owner of the property and as a consequence, navneet kaur, being the daughter-in-law of surender kaur, would have no right to stay in the property owned by her mother-in-law. 11. ..... its findings, the division bench held that since navneet kaur stayed with her husband and his parents in commensality sharing a common kitchen, that is, as a joint family, in the ground floor of b-44, vishal enclave, rajouri garden, new delhi, she had a right to reside in such shared household under the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005. 15. .....

Shilpa Tandon vs.harish Chand Tandon & Anr.

Court : Delhi

..... according to the division bench, such a view was buttressed by the reading of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 as a whole, wherein even under section 19 (1) (a) of the act, right of residence of a wife in a shared household where she had no legal or equitable interest was recognized.11. ..... the division bench held that in light of the judgment of the supreme court in taruna batra s case (supra) a wife could claim a right of residence under section 2(s) of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 in the premises where she stayed along with her husband as a joint family with the owners of the premises, regardless of whether she or the husband had any right, title or interest in the shared household . ..... she predicates a right to reside on the barsati/first floor on the strength of it being her shared household as defined under section 2(s) of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005.4. ..... taruna batra, the learned single judge of this court, vide order dated march 21, 2014 held that the property at b-44, vishal enclave was not shared household under section 2(s) of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005; that surender kaur was the sole owner of the property and as a consequence, navneet kaur, being the daughter-in-law of surender kaur, would have no right to stay in the property owned by her mother-in-law.9. .....

Sh Rajeev Tandon & Anr vs.smt Rashmi Tandon

Court : Delhi

..... the suit property is not the shared household of the defendant as defined under section 2(s ) of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 and the defendant has no statutory right to reside in the suit property contrary to the wishes ..... denied that the suit property is not a shared household in terms of section 2(s) in terms of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005. ..... the written statement the defendant denies that the present suit property is not a shared household in terms of section 2(5) of the protection of women from domestic violence act ..... filed various cases against her ex-husband under the domestic violence act and also got registered an fir under sectionsand also got her ex husband arrested in the aforesaid fir and pursuant thereto a settlement was executed vide settlement deed dated 26.11.2009 before the delhi high court mediation & conciliation centre, wherein the defendant took an alimony of rs.36,50,000/- from her ex-husband and pursuant thereto the divorce by ..... needs to be now mentioned especially after passing of the benami transaction (prohibition) act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the benami act ) and which act states that property in the name of an individual has to be taken as owned by that individual and no claim to such property is maintainable as per section 4(1) of the benami act on the ground that monies have come from the person who claims right in the property though title deeds of the property are not in the name .....

Shri Vidyanidhi Dalmia Vs. Smt. Nilanjana Dalmia

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 150(2008)DLT19; I(2008)DMC848; 2008(102)DRJ611

..... the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 ('the domestic violence act') by section 17 enacts the right of a woman, to reside in a shared household. ..... contrary to the rights asserted by the plaintiff, this recent enactment has clothed only wives and women in domestic relationships the right to remedies of the kind sought here; domestic violence has, in this context, been defined expansively to comprehend physical violence, verbal abuse, economic deprivation and so on.29. ..... it creates a statutory right in favor of 'every woman in a domestic relationship', an expression, given the wide meaning assigned to 'domestic relationship' by section 2(f), including not only the wife or a female blood relative, but also a female friend who has shared, even for a short period, the same residence with the husband or male respondent. ..... is brought whenever either the husband or the wife lives separate from the other without any sufficient reason, in which case the court will decree restitution of conjugal rights (matrimonial causes act, 1950, section 15), but will not enforce it by attachment, substituting however for attachment, if the wife be the petitioner, an order for periodical payments by the husband to the wife (section 22).conjugal rights cannot be enforced by the act of either party, and a husband cannot seize and detain his .....

Rajkumar Rampal Pandey Vs. Sarita Rajkumar Pandey

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2008(6)BomCR831

..... the respondent-wife moved an application before the family court, bandra under section 26 of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 ('the domestic violence act' for short) to seek declaration that she has a right to reside in the shared house i.e. ..... with the aforesaid aim and objects of the domestic violence act, now, let me turn to the provisions of the act relevant for the decision of this petition.section 2(s) 'shared household'. ..... the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the application under section 26 of the domestic violence act was not maintainable and that the subject-flat cannot be termed as the shared household. ..... a-113 of 2007 by the principal judge of the family court, bandra, mumbai whereby the petitioner, his mother, sister, other relatives, servants and agents are restrained from obstructing the respondent-wife to reside in a shared household.factual matrix:3. ..... , after hearing both parties, was pleased to partly allow the application with the result the petitioner-husband and all relatives were permanently restrained from committing any act of domestic violence and in turn rejected prayer of respondent-wife to prevent the petitioner's mother and sister from entering in the shared household.being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, to the extent it is adverse to the petitioner, he has invoked writ jurisdiction of this court under article 227 of the constitution of india .....

Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... that the suit filed by the plaintiff is directly in conflict with the right of the defendant to reside in her matrimonial residence/shared household granted to her by the legislature and specifically envisaged in section 17 and 19 of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 and as such is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. ..... from the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties following questions arise for determination in this appeal: (1) whether definition of shared household under section 2(s) of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 has to be read to mean that shared household can only be that household which is household of joint family or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share?. ..... apart from the above, 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 protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 (here- inafter referred to as the act ).59. ..... 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. ..... taruna batra, (2007) 3 scc169has not correctly interpreted the provision of section 2(s) of protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 and does not lay down a correct law?. .....

Vinay Varma vs.kanika Pasricha & Anr.

Court : Delhi

..... a catena of verdicts has been relied upon on behalf of the appellant in support of the contentions that there being collusion between her spouse and the plaintiff/ respondent no.1, she cannot be deprived of her rights to reside in the premises in suit which form her matrimonial home and fall within the category of "shared household" in terms of section 2 (s) of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005.20. ..... rajesh dinanath tiwari in writ petition no.10696/2017, it being apparent through the pleadings on the record that the premises in suit do not fall within the category of a shared household in terms of section 2 (s) of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005, the substantial questions of law sought to be urged by the appellant as referred to in para 18 hereinabove do not arise for consideration in the instant case in as much as the rights of the appellant cm (m) 1582/2018 page 28 of 40 and her daughter to live in the premises belonging to the respondent no.1 i.e. ..... in light of its findings, the division bench held that since navneet kaur stayed with her husband and his parents in commensality sharing a common kitchen, that is, as a joint family, in the ground floor of b-44, vishal enclave, rajouri garden, new delhi, she had a right to reside in such shared household under the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005.13. .....

Dr. Rachna Khanna Singh vs.santosh s.p. Singh and Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... . a catena of verdicts has been relied upon on behalf of the appellant in support of the contentions that there being collusion between her spouse and the plaintiff/ respondent no.1, she cannot be deprived of her rights to reside in the premises in suit which form her matrimonial home and fall within the category of shared household rsa172019 page 14 of 17 in terms of section 2 (s) of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005.20 ..... . rajesh dinanath tiwari in writ petition no.10696/2017, it being apparent through the pleadings on the record that the premises in suit do not fall within the category of a shared household in terms of section 2 (s) of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005, the substantial questions of law sought to be urged by the appellant as referred to in para 18 hereinabove do not arise for consideration in the instant case in as much as the rights of the appellant and her daughter to live in the premises belonging to the respondent no.1 i.e ..... the contention of the appellant that is sought to be urged is to the effect that the premises in suit fall within the category of a shared household in terms of section 2 (s) of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 and seeks to submit that the suit premises being her matrimonial home in which she lives and has lived in a matrimonial relationship with her husband, the respondent no.1, falls within the category of her shared household from which she cannot be dispossessed.10 .....

Aarti Kumari @ Menka vs.rakesh Kummar Chhabra & Anr

Court : Delhi

..... as regards the contention raised by the appellant that the premises j-1/c, laxmi nagar, near jagat ram park, delhi-110092 was a shared household of the appellant in terms of section 2(s) of the protection of women from the domestic violence act, 2005, it is essential to observe that section 2(s) of the said enactment provides as follows:-" 2. ..... insofar as section 17 of the said act is concerned, a wife would only be entitled to claim a right of residence in a "shared household" and such a 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 ..... judge-east, kkd courts, delhi that the said premises on the 2nd floor of j-1/c, laxmi nagar, near jagat ram park, delhi- 110092 formed her matrimonial home and a shared household, in which she had a legal right to reside and that she could not be dispossessed from the same by her father-in-law,- was rejected by the learned civil judge-east observing to the effect that the suit property neither belonged to the husband of the appellant i.e ..... (2013) dmc689 wherein it was held to the effect:-" in view of the above legal position, the contention of defendant no.2 regarding her rights under the protection of woman from domestic violence act cannot be accepted, her reliance on sectiori-17 of the said act, to claim a right to reside in the suit property is misconceived inasmuch as admittedly her husband has no rights whatsoever in the suit property. .....

Manju Gupta vs.pankaj Gupta & Anr

Court : Delhi

..... shared household is described in the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 by section 2(s) as under:-" 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 such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household ..... in the above-mentioned definition of shared household that the person against whom the right of residence is claimed qua the household described as such should have a right, title or interest therein. ..... proceedings, the petitioner also claimed right of residence, referring in this context to the above-mentioned property, describing it as the shared household . ..... the metropolitan magistrate, by order dated 01.03.2016, declined to grant any relief in the nature of right to residence in respect of a portion in the above-mentioned property, referring in this context to the litigation in various cases, primarily one in ..... 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 .....