Karnataka High Court
Sri. Nithyananda vs Smt. Surekha Shetty on 30 June, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 989 OF 2016
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 938 OF 2016
IN CRL.RP No. 989/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NITHYANANDA
S/O. GANESH ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
2. SRI. GANESH ACHARYA
S/O. LATE SHANKAR ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
3. SMT. LEELAVATHI
W/O. SRI. GANESH ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING
Digitally signed by AT No.174, KALMADI ROAD
LAKSHMINARAYANA KOTATHATTU VILLAGE
MURTHY RAJASHRI
KUNDAPURA TALUK
Location: HIGH
COURT OF UDUPI DISTRICT - 571 401.
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HEGDE V S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SUREKHA SHETTY
ALLEGED W/O. NITHYANANDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT No.1507, 4TH CROSS
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BANGALORE - 560 086.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B VIJAY SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 10.09.2013 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.No.141/2012 ON THE FILE
OF III M.M.T.C., BANGALORE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
29.06.2016 PASSED IN CRL.A.No.541/2013 PARTLY ALLOWING THE
APPEAL ON THE FILE OF 55TH ADDL. C.C. AND S.J., BANGALORE AND
ETC.,
IN CRL.RP No. 938/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NITHYANANDA
S/O GANESH ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
2. SRI. GANESH ACHARTYA
S/O. LATE SHANKAR ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
3. SMT. LEELAVATHI
W/O SRI. GANESH ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT No.174
KALMADI ROAD
KOTATHATTU VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT - 575 401.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HEGDE V S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SUREKHA SHETTY
ALLEGED W/O NITHYANANDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
R/AT No.1507, 4TH 'D' CROSS
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BANGALORE - 560 086.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B VIJAY SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397(1) READ WITH
SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
29.06.2016 PASSED BY THE 55TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J.,
BENGALURU IN CRL.A.No.583/2013 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER
DATED 10.09.2013 PASSED BY THE M.M.T.C.-II, BANGALORE IN
CRL. MISC. No.140/2012 AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
1. Crl.R.P. No. 938/2016 is directed against the
order dated 939/2016 passed in Crl.A. No. 583/2013 by
the 55th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru allowing the appeal setting aside the order
dated 10.09.2013 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 140/2012 by the
II Traffic Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, and
petitioner Nos.1 to 3 have been directed to give a portion
of accommodation in the house of petitioner No.1 where
they are residing to the respondent (wife) as alternate
accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) of Protection of
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
Women from Domestic Violance Act, 2005 (hereinafter
reffered to as the D.V. Act) for her residential purpose as
prayed by her in Crl.Misc. No. 140/2012.
2. Crl.R.P. No. 989/2016 is directed against the
order dated 29.06.2016 passed in Crl.A. No. 541/2013 by
55th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru,
whereunder the appeal came to be partly allowed whereby
granting house rent to the respondent (wife) in Crl.Misc.
No. 141/2012 dated 10.09.2013 is rejected and other part
of the order has been confirmed.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and
learned counsel for respondent.
4. Respondent – wife filed an application under
Section 12 of the D.V. Act in Crl.Misc. No. 141/2012 (old
No. 1163/2009) claiming several reliefs against the
petitioners including maintenance, monetary relief etc.
Respondent also filed Crl.Misc.No. 140/2012 (old No.
1069/2010) under Section 12 of the D.V. Act seeking
residence order directing the petitioners to give a portion
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
of the accommodation in the house of the petitioners
where they reside.
5. It is the case of the respondent that her
marriage took place with petitioner No. 1 on 22.10.2007 in
Ganesha temple, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalolre and it was a
love marriage and also, an inter-caste marriage. Said
marriage has been attended by the parents, brothers and
friends of respondent. Respondent lived with petitioner No.
1 for a period of one year in Bengaluru and that is after
marriage. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have not attended the
said marriage. As the marriage was a love marriage and
inter-caste marriage, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 asked the
respondent to leave petitioner No. 1 stating that they will
perform his marriage with some other girl of same caste
by taking huge dowry. Petitioner No. 1 led marital life with
the respondent for a period of one year, till October 2008,
and thereafter changed his mind and started to listen to
the words of his parents and started to ill-treat the
respondent physically and mentally. Petitioner No.1
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
demanded dowry of Rs. 2 lakhs from the respondent and
stated that otherwise he will divorce her. On 02.11.2008
petitioner No. 1 assaulted the respondent and she gave
complaint to the Mahalakshmipuram Police Station,
Bangalore on 03.11.2008. Petitioner No. 1 appeared
before the Police, admitted the relationship and told the
Police that they will settle the matter in the Court.
Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 started to reside in his native
place to avoid the respondent. It is stated that petitioner
No. 1 was doing carpenter work and earning Rs.15,000/-
per month and also having agricultural income to the tune
of Rs.10,000/- per month. Petitioner No. 1 was making
efforts to marry some other girl of his own caste and
therefore, respondent filed another complaint to the Police
on 17.02.2009 and Police registered a case against him for
offence under Section 498-A and 506 of IPC and Sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred
to as D.P. Act) and based on it charge sheet has been filed
and case has been registered against the petitioner No.1
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
in C.C. No. 12428/2009. Respondent continued to reside
in a rented house by paying rent of Rs.2,000/- per month.
Petitioner No. 1 filed his objections to the petition of
respondent and took up the contention that respondent is
not at all the wedded wife and she has no domestic
relationship with him. He contended that respondent is a
stranger to him and she has created false story in order to
extract huge money from the petitioners. Respondent
claimed monetary relief of maintenance, residence order
and other reliefs.
6. Respondent led evidence and examined herself
as P.W.1 and examined herself as P.W.1 and examined
one witness as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 in
Crl.Misc. No. 141/2012. Petitioner No.1 has been
examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3.
7. Respondent has been examined as P.W.1 and
got examined another witness as P.W.2 and got marked
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 and petitioner No. 1 has been examined
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
as R.W.1 and no documents were marked on his side in
Crl.Misc.No. 140/2012.
8. Learned Magistrate heard arguments on both
sides and passed common order in both petitions. Learned
Magistrate has allowed Crl.Misc. No. 141/2012 in part and
granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the
respondent and directed petitioner No. 1 to pay the same
and also directed petitioner No.1 to pay Rs.2,000/- as
rent of the house in which respondent resides. Learned
Magistrate has also granted compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh
for her mental and physical cruelty. Learned Magistrate
has dismissed Crl.Misc.No. 140/2012. Aggrieved by the
said order passed by the learned Magistrate petitioners
filed Crl.A No. 541/2013 challenging the order passed in
Crl.Misc. No. 141/2012 and respondent filed Crl.A. No.
583/2013 challenging dismissal of Crl.Misc. No. 140/2012.
9. Learned Sessions Judge heard arguments on
both sides and passed judgment dated 29.06.2016
whereunder he allowed Crl.A. No. 541/2013 in part and
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
set aside order of the Magistrate directing payment of
house rent in a sum of Rs.2,000/- and confirmed the other
relief granted in it. Learned Sessions Judge has allowed
Crl.A. No. 583/2013 and directed petitioners herein to give
a portion of accommodation in the house of petitioner No.
1 where they reside to the respondent as alternate
accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) of D.V. Act for her
residential purpose as prayed by her in Crl.Misc.No.
140/2012. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge in both the appeals, petitioners
have filed these two revision petitions.
10. Learned counsel for petitioners has contended
that there is no domestic relationship between the
petitioners and respondent as defined under Section 2(f)
of D.V. Act as the marriage has not been proved in
accordance with law. He contended that it is for the
respondent to prove the marriage but the learned
Magistrate and Sessions Judge have casted the burden of
proving the marriage on petitioner No. 1 – husband and it
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
is negative burden. Learned Magistrate has given a finding
on marriage based on Ex.P.2 – photograph and negatives
of the same are not produced. As the marriage is disputed
it is for the respondent to prove the marriage and not for
petitioner No.1 to disprove the marriage. Learned
Magistrate has placed reliance on the voter I.D. and
election slips regarding proof of marriage. He submits that
voter I.D. has been created and it is prepared at the
instance of respondent and therefore it cannot be relied on
to establish the relationship of husband and wife. The
ceremonies of Hindu Marriage as required under Section 7
of the Hindu Marriage Act, i.e., `Saptapadi’ has not been
established. Marriage is not registered. He further
contended that points for consideration/issues were not
framed at the trial and they are formulated at the time of
passing order which deprives the petitioners an
opportunity to prove those points. On that point he placed
reliance on the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High
Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Sushma Devi,
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
Cr.Revision No. 132/2021 decided on 01.06.2023. He
placed reliance on the judgment of a coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Neelam Manmohan Vs. Neelam
Attavar, reported in LAW(KAR)-2018-7-97 on the point
that negatives of the photograph i.e., Ex.P.2 is not
produced and therefore, photograph cannot be taken as a
piece of evidence.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent wife
would contend that the marriage of petitioner No. 1 and
respondent is a love marriage and it is an inter-caste
marriage which took place at Ganesha temple at Rajaji
Nagar, Bengaluru, on 22.10.2007 and they led marital life
as husband and wife and resided in a rented house
belonging to P.W.2 at Bengaluru. Voter I.D. card and
evidence of P.W.2 establish that petitioner No.1 and
respondent resided as husband and wife.
12. Points for consideration or issues are not
necessary to be framed prior to commencement of trial as
proceedings under the D.V. Act are summary proceedings.
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
Petitioner No.1 was aware of the contention of respondent
regarding her marriage with him and they residing
together as husband wife and petitioner No.1 denying the
said marriage and relationship. Petitioner No.1 was also
aware of the said contention and contested the matter and
therefore, he is aware of the dispute involved in the lis and
he had been given opportunity to prove his contention.
Therefore, in proceedings of summary nature there is no
necessity of framing issues or points for consideration
prior to commencement of trial. Therefore, the judgment
of the Himachal Pradesh High Court (supra) relied upon by
the learned counsel for petitioners is not based on any of
the provisions of D.V. Act.
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kamala
and others Vs. M.R. Mohan Kumar, Crl.A. Nos. 2368-
2369/2009 decided on 24.10.2018 has held as under:
“19. In Chanmuniya case, this Court
formulated three questions and referred the matter
to the larger Bench. However, after discussing
various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code,
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016HC-KAR
this Court held that a broad and extensive
interpretation should be given to the term “wife”
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and held as under:-
“42. We are of the opinion that a broad
and expansive interpretation should be
given to the term “wife” to include even
those cases where a man and woman have
been living together as husband and wife
for a reasonably long period of time, and
strict proof of marriage should not be a
precondition for maintenance under
Section 125 Cr.PC, so as to fulfill the true
spirit and essence of the beneficial
provision of maintenance under Section
125. We also believe that such an
interpretation would be a just application
of the principles enshrined in the Preamble
to our Constitution, namely, social justice
and upholding the dignity of the
individual.”
14. Considering the said decision strict proof of
marriage should not be a precondition for proceedings
under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.
15. Domestic relationship as defined in the D.V. Act
means relationship between two persons who live or have,
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
at any point of time, lived together in a shared household,
when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or
through a relationship in the nature of marriage. The
relevant provisions of the D.V. Act are reproduced herein.
Section 2(a) of the D.V. Act defines `aggrieved
person’ which reads thus:
2(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman
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;
Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act defines `domestic
relationship’ and it reads thus:
2(f) “domestic relationship” means a
relationship between two persons who live or
have, at any point of time, live together in a
shared household, when they are related by
consanguinity, marriage, or through a
relationship in the nature of marriage,
adoption or are family members living
together as a joint family;
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016HC-KAR
Section 2(q) of the D.V. Act defines `respondent’ and
it reads thus:
2(q) “respondent” means any adult male
person who is, or has been, in domestic
relationship with the aggrieved person and
against whom the aggrieved person has
sought any relief under this Act:
Provided that an aggrieved wife or
female living in a relationship in the nature of
a marriage may also file a complaint against a
relationship of the husband or the male
partner.
Section 2(s) of the D.V. Act defines `shared
household’ and it reads thus:
2(s) “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
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016HC-KAR
right, title, interest or equity and 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.”
16. In terms of Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act
`domestic relationship’ not only means relationship
between two persons who live together in a shared house
hold by virtue of marriage, two persons who lived together
in a share household through a relation in the `nature of
marriage’ would also be called to be in a domestic
relationship.
17. Respondent in her petition has categorically
stated that marriage between her and petitioner No. 1 had
taken place on 22.10.2007 in Ganesha Temple at Rajaji
Nagar, Bengaluru and thereafter she resided with
petitioner No. 1 in a rented house at Bengaluru for one
year and she was subjected to cruelty. In view of
definition of `domestic relationship’ strict proof of
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
marriage for claiming relief under the D.V. Act is not
necessary since the said definition includes relationship in
the nature of marriage or lived together in a shared
household. Even the parties to a `live-in relationship’ are
also entitled to claim benefits under the provisions of D.V.
Act.
18. The voter I.D. card contains the name of
petitioner No.1 as husband of respondent. Apart from that
there is evidence of P.W.2 who has categorically deposed
that petitioner No.1 and respondent resided as husband
and wife in the house belonging to his father as tenants
for a period of one year and their marriage is a love
marriage and inter-caste marriage. Basing on the said
evidence, learned Magistrate has rightly held that there is
domestic relationship between the petitioners and
respondent.
19. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend
that the respondent has not resided with petitioner Nos. 2
and 3 at any point of time in their house at Kotakattu
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
village Kundapura taluk and therefore, the residence order
passed by the appellate Court is not maintainable. On that
point he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of S.R. Batra and others Vs.
Taruna Batra reported in 2007 (3) SCC 169. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision has held as under:
“29. 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 property in question in
the present case neihter belongs to Amit Batra nor
was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family
property of which the husband Amit Batra is a
member. It is the exclusive property of Appellant
2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called
a “shared household.”
20. Learned counsel for respondent has placed
reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi reported in
– 19 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
2022 (8) SCC 90. In the said case the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held as under:
“75. In view of the above discussion, the
three questions raised in this appeal are answered
as under:
75.1 (i) Whether the consideration of
Domestic Incidence Report is mandatory before
initiating the proceedings under Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 in order to invoke substantive provisions
of Sections 18 to 20 and 22 of the said Act?”
It is held that Section 12 does not make it
mandatory for a Magistrate to consider a Domestic
Incident Report filed by a Protection Officer or
service provider before passing any order under the
D.V. Act. It is clarified that even in the absence of a
Domestic Incident Report, a Magistrate is
empowered to pass both ex parte or interim as well
as a final order under the provisions of the D.V.
Act.
75.2 “(ii) Whether it is mandatory for the
aggrieved person to reside with those persons
against whom the allegations have been levied at
the point of commission of violence?
It is held that it is not mandatory for the
aggrieved person, when she is related by
consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in
the nature of marriage, adoption or are family
– 20 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
members living together as a joint family, to
actually reside with those persons against whom
the allegations have been levelled at the time of
commission of domestic violence. If a woman has
the right to reside in the shared household Under
Section 17 of the D.V. Act and such a woman
becomes an aggrieved person or victim of domestic
violence, she can seek reliefs under the provisions
of D.V. Act including enforcement of her right to
live in a shared household.
75.3. “(iii) Whether there should be a
subsisting domestic relationship between the
aggrieved person and the person against whom the
relief is claimed?”
It is held that there should be a subsisting
domestic relationship between the aggrieved
person and the person against whom the relief is
claimed vis-à-vis allegation of domestic violence.
However, it is not necessary that at the time of
filing of an application by an aggrieved person, the
domestic relationship should be subsisting. In other
words, even if an aggrieved person is not in a
domestic relationship with the Respondent in a
shared household at the time of filing of an
application Under Section 12 of the D.V. Act but has
at any point of time lived so or had the right to live
and has been subjected to domestic violence or is
later subjected to domestic violence on account of
– 21 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016HC-KAR
the domestic relationship, is entitled to file an
application Under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.”
21. In the said decision the Hon’ble Apex Court has
held that the expression `right to reside in the shared
household’ is not restricted to only actual residents, as,
irrespective of the actual residents, women in a domestic
relationship can enforce her right to reside in a shared
household. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision has
held as under:
30. Further in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha
Ahuja [(2021) 1 SCC 414 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 325
: (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 667] , a three-Judge Bench of
this Court, wherein one of us (Shah, J.) was a
member, considered the expressions “lives or have
at any point of time lived” appearing in Section 2(s)
of the DV Act. This Court while considering the
correctness of the law laid down in S.R. Batra v.
Taruna Batra [(2007) 3 SCC 169 : (2007) 2 SCC
(Cri) 56] , concluded that the said case had not
correctly interpreted Section 2(s) of the DV Act and
that the said judgment does not lay down a correct
law and observed as under : (Sneha Ahuja case
[Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1
– 22 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
SCC 414 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 325 : (2021) 1 SCC
(Cri) 667] , SCC pp. 452-53, paras 66-69)
“66. … 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 para 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.
– 23 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
67. … The entire scheme of the Act is to
provide immediate relief to the aggrieved
person with respect to the shared
household where the aggrieved person
lives or has lived. As observed above, the
use of the expression ‘at any stage has
lived’ was only with intent of not denying
the protection to aggrieved person merely
on the ground that aggrieved person is not
living as on the date of the application or
as on the date when Magistrate concerned
passes an order under Section 19. The
apprehension expressed by this Court in
para 26 in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra [S.R.
Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 :
(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 56] , thus, was not
true apprehension and it is correct that in
event such interpretation is accepted, it
will lead to chaos and that was never the
legislative intent. We, thus, are of the
considered opinion that shared household
referred to in Section 2(s) is the shared
household of aggrieved person where she
was living at the time when application
was filed or in the recent past had been
excluded from the use or she is
temporarily absent.
– 24 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
68. The words ‘lives or at any stage has
lived in a domestic relationship’ have to be
given its normal and purposeful meaning.
The living of woman in a household has to
refer to a living which has some
permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living
at different places shall not make a shared
household. The intention of the parties and
the nature of living including the nature of
household have to be looked into to find
out as to whether the parties intended to
treat the premises as shared household or
not. As noted above, the 2005 Act was
enacted to give a higher right in favour of
woman. The 2005 Act has been enacted to
provide for more effective protection of the
rights of the woman who are victims of
violence of any kind occurring within the
family. The Act has to be interpreted in a
manner to effectuate the very purpose and
object of the Act. Section 2(s) read with
Sections 17 and 19 of the 2005 Act 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.
69. … The definition of “shared household”
as noticed in Section 2(s) does not indicate
– 25 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016HC-KAR
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 the
Domestic Violence Act can be any relative
of the husband. In the 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.”
22. Considering the above, the decision relied upon
by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of S.R.
Batra (supra) has been overruled by a three Judge Bench
in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision has observed
as under:
“42. Further, the expression “the right to
reside in a shared household” cannot be restricted
to actual residence. In other words, even in the
absence of actual residence in the shared
household, a woman in a domestic relationship can
– 26 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016HC-KAR
enforce her right to reside therein. The aforesaid
interpretation can be explained by way of an
illustration. If a woman gets married then she
acquires the right to reside in the household of her
husband which then becomes a shared household
within the meaning of the DV Act. In India, it is a
societal norm for a woman, on her marriage to
reside with her husband, unless due to professional,
occupational or job commitments, or for other
genuine reasons, the husband and wife decide to
reside at different locations. Even in a case where
the woman in a domestic relationship is residing
elsewhere on account of a reasonable cause, she
has the right to reside in a shared household. Also
a woman who is, or has been, in a domestic
relationship has the right to reside not only in the
house of her husband, if it is located in another
place which is also a shared household but also in
the shared household which may be in a different
location in which the family of her husband
resides.”
23. Considering the said aspect, the order passed
by the appellate Court, i.e., residence order for the
respondent to reside in the house of petitioner Nos. 2 and
3 is proper and correct.
– 27 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22992
CRL.RP No. 989 of 2016
C/W CRL.RP No. 938 of 2016
HC-KAR
24. Considering all these aspects no fault can be
found with the order passed by the trial Court and the
judgment passed by the appellate Court.
25. Learned counsel for petitioners has not argued
regarding quantum of maintenance awarded and therefore
this Court need not go into the said aspect. There are no
grounds made out to interfere with the well reasoned
order passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court.
26. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
LRS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27