# Smt. Neetu Rana v. The State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 391 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-02-29 - **Bench:** Suneet Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-neetu-rana-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-43541 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Govt. Advocate, Shri A.C. Srivastava Held - 29.02.2016 : Para 1: The respondent declined to file a counter-affidavit, and both parties agreed to have the petition decided at the admission stage. Para 2: The applicant (wife) challenged an appellate court order dated 11 January 2016, which had set aside an interim residence order originally granted in her favor. Para 3: The Magistrate initially allowed the wife to live in the "shared household." The appellate court set this aside and remanded the case because the husband claimed no notice was received and argued the house belonged solely to his mother. Para 4: The wife argued the remand was flawed because the appellate court already concluded the house wasn't a "shared household." The husband countered that since the property belonged to the grandmother/mother, it didn't fall under the Act. Para 5: The Court examined the definitions of "domestic relationship," "shared household," and "respondent." It noted that ownership is secondary to the factum of living together. 392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Para 6: The Court emphasized that the Act protects a woman's right to residence regardless of whether the husband has title/ownership of the property. The definition of "shared household" is inclusive and favors the protection of the aggrieved person. Para 7: The Court declined to set aside the appellate order but directed the lower court to hear the case afresh without being influenced by previous observations. Para 8: Crucially, the Court ordered that the wife shall continue to reside in the house and the respondents are restrained from interfering until a fresh decision is made. Para 9: The petition was officially disposed of with these directions. Petition Disposed with Direction. Case laws Cited:- ## Text 3 All. Bhupendra Vikram Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 391 member, is not disputed. In view of this, in our opinion, a writ of quo warranto would not be maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner who has already contested the election, could have also filed an election petition for the same. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to contest the matter in law before the appropriate forum. 5. The writ petition is accordingly rejected. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.02.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J. Matters Under Article 227 No. - 377 of 2016 Smt. Neetu Rana ...Petitioner Versus The State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Shri Nitin Kumar Agrawal Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate, Shri A.C. Srivastava Held - 29.02.2016 : Para 1: The respondent declined to file a counter-affidavit, and both parties agreed to have the petition decided at the admission stage. Para 2: The applicant (wife) challenged an appellate court order dated 11 January 2016, which had set aside an interim residence order originally granted in her favor. Para 3: The Magistrate initially allowed the wife to live in the "shared household." The appellate court set this aside and remanded the case because the husband claimed no notice was received and argued the house belonged solely to his mother. Para 4: The wife argued the remand was flawed because the appellate court already concluded the house wasn't a "shared household." The husband countered that since the property belonged to the grandmother/mother, it didn't fall under the Act. Para 5: The Court examined the definitions of "domestic relationship," "shared household," and "respondent." It noted that ownership is secondary to the factum of living together. 392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Para 6: The Court emphasized that the Act protects a woman's right to residence regardless of whether the husband has title/ownership of the property. The definition of "shared household" is inclusive and favors the protection of the aggrieved person. Para 7: The Court declined to set aside the appellate order but directed the lower court to hear the case afresh without being influenced by previous observations. Para 8: Crucially, the Court ordered that the wife shall continue to reside in the house and the respondents are restrained from interfering until a fresh decision is made. Para 9: The petition was officially disposed of with these directions. Petition Disposed with Direction. Case laws Cited:- 1. S.R. Batra and another v. Smt. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 2. Smt. Preeti Satija v. Smt. Raj Kumari and another, AIR 2014 Delhi 46 3. Nishant Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2012 (6) ADJ 759 4. Eveneet Singh v. Prashant Chaudhri and others, 177 (2011) DLT 124 5. Shima v. Navas, 2015 (1) KLJ 749 16.03.2016:- In paras-4 & 7 of the order dated 29.2.2016, "House No. GM-1, Building No. 4, Meenal Apartment, Shalimar Garden Extension-II, Shahibabad, Ghaziabad" shall be read as "House No. B-86, New Rajendra Nagar, Delhi-60". (Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent made a statement that the respondent does not intend to file counter affidavit. 2. On the consent of the parties, the petition is being decided at the admission stage. 3. The applicant has approached this Court assailing the order dated 11 January 2016 passed by the appellate court/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2014 (Tushar Singh vs. Smt. Neetu Rana) under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as 'the Act, 2005') arising from an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 5614 of 2014 (Smt. Neetu Rana vs. Tushar Singh) in proceedings 12 of the Act, 2005. 4. The applicant preferred a petition under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 for various reliefs. The court of first instance passed an interim order under Section 19 directing the respondent to permit the applicant to reside in the shared household being House No. GM-1, Building No. 4, Meenal Apartment, Shalimar Garden Extension-II, Shahibabad, Ghaziabad. 3 All. Smt. Neetu Rana Vs The State Of U.P. & Anr. 393 Aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal. The appellate court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the court of first instance to decide afresh. Contention raised by the respondent before the appellate court was that? (1) no notice was received by them, therefore, appropriate opportunity was not given; and (2) The household is owned by the mother-in-law, therefore, the applicant would not be entitled to residence in the said accommodation in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in S.R. Batra and another v. Smt. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC169. The applicant is assailing the order of appellate court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the appellate court committed error by remanding the matter holding that the accommodation is not the shared household, therefore, nothing remains for the court of first instance to decide. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would urge that the accommodation belongs to grandmother (Nani) which she gifted to his mother, therefore, the property would not fall within the definition of "shared household", the appellate court, therefore, did not commit any jurisdictional error. 6. In the application filed by the applicant it was clearly stated that after marriage with the second respondent, the applicant came to the present accommodation and she along with her husband resided in the present house. It is, therefore, sought to be urged on behalf of the applicant that the ownership of the household becomes immaterial, once it is admitted that after marriage, parties shifted to the house of the mother-in-law. It is admitted that the respondent does not own any accommodation. Section 2(f) defines "domestic relationship" which means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household. Section 2(s) defines "shared household" which 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. Section 2(q) defines who is a 'respondent' which means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act. Section 19 of the Act, 2005 confers power upon the Magistrate to pass residence order while disposing of an application under Sub-section (1) of Section 12. It is thus, apparent from the Scheme of the Act that the Parliamentary intention was to secure the rights of aggrieved person in the shared household, which could be tenanted by the respondent (including relative of the husband) or in respect of which the respondent had jointly or singly any right, title, interest, or "equity". The provisions would not mean that daughter-in-law, would not be able to claim protection from dispossession, notwithstanding that her husband never had any ownership rights, in the premises. 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. Thus, at best it can be urged that while deciding an issue pertaining to a wife's claim for residence in the shared household the discussion must start with a presumption in favour of the wife that law leans in her favour to continue to reside in the shared household and only upon adequate circumstances being manifestly and 394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES objectively disclosed by the opposite party, could an order contemplated by clause (f) of sub-section 1 of Section 10 of the Act be passed, therefore, a daughter-in-law, estranged from her husband living with a mother-in-law, in premises owned by the latter, falls within a "domestic relationship". The obligation not to disturb the right to residence in the shared household would continue even if the mother- in-law does not have any right, title or interest, but is a tenant, or entitled to "equity". The right of the aggrieved person is not dependent on title, but the mere factum of residence. 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. Thus, excluding the right of residence against properties where the husband has no right, share, interest or title, would severely curtail the extent of the usefulness of the right to residence. (Reference may be made to Smt. Preeti Satija v. Smt. Raj Kumari and another AIR 2014 Delhi 46; Nishant Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others 2012 (6) ADJ 759; Eveneet Singh v. Prashant Chaudhri and others 177(2011)DLT124; and Shima v. Navas 2015 (1) KLJ 749.) 7. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution declines to interfere with the impugned order dated 11 January 2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2014 (Tushar Singh vs. Smt. Neetu Rana). However, it is provided that the court of first instance shall grant opportunity and hear the matter afresh without being influenced by the observations made on merit and law in the impugned order. Pending decision, residence of the applicant in House No. GM-1, Building No. 4, Meenal Apartment, Shalimar Garden Extension-II, Shahibabad, Ghaziabad shall continue and the respondents are restrained from interfering with the residence of the applicant. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.12.2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J. Writ C No.- 49810 of 2015 Mohd. Shahid. ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mohd. Umar Khan Counsel for the Respondents: