Supreme Court: Refusing to interfere with the Delhi High Court verdict, the bench of MR Shah and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that in a dispute between the husband and wife under the Domestic Violence Act, the landlord, who otherwise is entitled to the decree of eviction should not be made to suffer. The dispute between the husband and wife under the Domestic Violence Act shall not preclude and/or affect the right of the landlord to get the possession if otherwise he is entitled to.
The Court made clear that if the wife has any grievance against the husband, may be in respect of the alternative accommodation, the same is required to be adjudicated in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and/or any other remedy which may be available to her against the husband.
The Court was hearing an appeal against the Delhi High Court verdict [2021 SCC OnLine Del 2109] wherein the Trial Court’s order granting the possession of the suit property on favour of the landlord was upheld. The appellant wife, in the present case, had challenged the Trail Court’s order on the ground that her husband should provide her accommodation as per the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Delhi High Court, was, however, of the view the issue of accommodation by husband under the Domestic Violence Act cannot be a subject matter of the dispute between the landlord and the tenant.
The High Court had also taken note of the fact that an application filed by the appellant herself in the proceedings before the Trial Court wherein the impugned order has been passed, has been withdrawn by the appellant because of the fact that in a separate proceeding under the D. V. Act on her application certain orders have been passed though recalled later, which order has been taken in appeal by the appellant.
“It is for the appellant to seek such orders as appropriate in accordance with law. But surely not in these proceedings.”
[Archana Goindi Khandelwal v. Rajesh Balkrishnan Menon, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2939/2022, order dated 04.03.2022]
Counsels
For Appellant: Advocates VK Anand and Ravi Kumar Tomar