V.D. BHANOTversusSAVITA BHANOT

                     [2012] 1 S.C.R. 867


                        V.D. BHANOT                                 A
                               v.
                     SAVITA BHANOT
      (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3916 of 2010)

                     FEBRUARY 7, 2012
                                                                    B
    [ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]

   PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTICE
VIOLENCE ACT, 2005:
                                                                    c
     ss. 3, 12, 18, 19,20,31 and 33 - Domestic violence -
Complaint by wife - Held: Looking into a complaint uls 12, the
conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into force of
the Act, could be taken into consideration while passing an
order ulss 18, 19 and 20 thereof - High Court has also rightly      0
held that even if a wife, who had shared a household in the
past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force,
would still be entitled to the protection of the Act, - On facts,
the couple has no children - The wife is residing with her old
parents - After more than 31 years of marriage, the wife            E
having no children, is faced with the prospect of living alone
at the advanced age of 63 years, without any proper shelter
or protection and without any means of sustenance except for
the sum which the husband was directed by the Magistrate
to give to her each month - The situation comes squarely
within the ambit of s. 3 of the Act, which defines "domestic        F
violence" in wide terms, and, accordingly, no interference is
called for with the order of High Court - However, considering
the fact that the couple is childless and the wife has herself
expressed apprehension of her safety if she were to live alone
in a rented accommodation, and keeping in mind the object           G
of the Act to provide effective protection of the rights of women
guaranteed under the Constitution, who are victims of violence
of any kind occurring within the family, the order of the High

                              867                                   H
    868      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2012] 1 S.C.R.


A Court modified and it is directed that the wife be provided with
  a right of residence where the husband is residing, by way of
  relief u/s 19 of the Act - Protection orders uls 18 are also
  passed - It is further directed that in addition to providing the
  residential accommodation to the wife, the husband shall also
B pay a total sum of Rs.10,0001- per month to her towards her
  maintenance and day-to-day expenses.

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Criminal)
    No. 3916 of 2010.

C       From the Judgment & Order dated 22.3.2010 of the High
    Court of Delhi in CRMC No. 3959 of 2009.

          Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Anjali Bhargva, Sandeep Singh
    for the Petitioner.
D       Anil Kumar Bakshi, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Rakesh Kumar,
    Rajeshwar Tyagi, Ashok Kumar Shukle for the Respondent.

          The Order of the Court was delivered by

E                            ORDER

       ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. The Special Leave Petition is
  directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd March,
  2010, passed by the Delhi High Court in Cr.M.C.No.3959 of
  2009 filed by the Respondent wife, Mrs. Savita Bhanot,
F questioning the order passed by the learned J1dditional
  Sessions Judge on 18th September, 2009, dismissing the
  appeal filed by her against the order of the Metropolitan
  Magistrate dated 11th May, 2009.
G      2. There is no dispute that marriage between the parties
  was solemnized on 23rd August, 1980 and till 4th July, 2005,
  they lived together. Thereafter, for whatever reason, there were
  misunderstandings between the parties, as a result whereof,
  on 29th November, 2006, the Respondent filed a petition
H before the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of
          V.D. BHANOT v. SAVITA BHANOT                     869
                [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter referred       A
to as the "PWD Act", seeking various reliefs. By his order dated
8th December, 2006, the learned Magistrate granted interim
relief to the Respondent and directed the Petitioner to pay her
a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. By a subsequent order dated
17th February, 2007, the Magistrate passed a protection/           B
residence order under Sections 18 and 19 of the above Act,
protecting the right of the Respondent wife to reside in her
matrimonial home in Mathura. The said order was challenged
before the Delhi High Court, but such challenge was rejected.

     3. In the meantime, the Petitioner, who was a member of       C
the Armed Forces, retired from service on 6th December, 2007,
and on 26th February, 2008, he filed an application for the
Respondent's eviction from the Government accommodation
in Mathura Cantonment. The learned Magistrate directed the
Petitioner herein to find an alternative accommodation for the     D
Respondent who had in the meantime received an eviction
notice requiring her to vacate the official accommodation
occupied by her. By an order dated 11th May, 2009, the learned
Magistrate directed the Petitioner to let the Respondent live on
the 1st Floor of House No.D-279, Nirman Vihar, New Delhi,          E
which she claimed to be her permanent matrimonial home. The
learned Magistrate directed that if this was not possible, a
reasonable accommodation in the vicinity of Nirman Vihar was
to be made available to the Respondent wife. She further
directed that if the second option was also not possible, the      F
Petitioner would be required to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per
month to the Respondent as rental charges, so that she could
find a house of her choice.

     4. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned    G
Metropolitan Magistrate, the Respondent preferred an appeal,
which came to be dismissed on 18th September, 2009, by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, who was of the view that
since the Respondent had left the matrimonial home on 4th July,
2005, and the Act came into force on 26th October, 2006, the       H
    870      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A   claim of a woman living in domestic relationship or living
    together prior to 26th October, 2006, was not maintainable. The
    learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that since
    the cause of action arose prior to coming into force of the PWD
    Act, the Court could not adjudicate upon the merits of the
B   Respondent's case.

         5. Before the Delhi High Court, the only question which
   came up for determination was whether the petition under the
   provisions of the PWD Act, 2005, was maintainable by a
C woman, who was no longer residing with her husband or who
   was allegedly subjected to any act of domestic violence prior
   to the coming into force of the PWD Act on 26th October, 2006.
   After considering the constitutional safeguards under Article 21
   of the Constitution, vis-a-vis, the provisions of Sections 31 and
   33 of the PWD Act, 2005, and after examining the statement
0 of objects and reasons for the enactment of the PWD Act,
   2005, the learned Judge held that it was with the view of
   protecting the rights of women under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of
   the Constitution that the Parliament enacted the PWD Act,
   2005, in order to provide for some effective protection of rights
E guaranteed under the Constitution to women, who are victims
   of any kind of violence occurring within the family and matters
   connected therewith and incidental thereto, and to provide an
   efficient and expeditious civil remedy to them. The learned
 . Judge accordingly held that a petition under the provisions of
F the PWD Act, 2005, is maintainable even if the acts of
   domestic violence had been committed prior to the coming into
   force of the said Act, notwithstanding the fact that in the past
   she had lived together with her husband in a shared household,
   but was no more living with him, at the time when the Act came
G into force. The learned Judge, accordingly, set aside the order
   passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and directed him to
   consider the appeal filed by the Respondent wife on merits.

         6. As indicated hereinbefore, the Special Leave Petition
H   is directed against the said order dated 22nd March, 2010,
          V.D. BHANOT v. SAVITA BHANOT                    871
                [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

passed by the Delhi High Court and the findings contained         A
therein.

     7. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, on
15th September, 2011, the Petitioner appearing in-person
submitted that the disputes between him and the Respondent
                                                                  B
had been resolved and the parties had decided to file an
application for withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition. The
matter was, thereafter, referred to the Supreme Court Mediation
Centre and during the mediation, a mutual settlement signed
by both the parties was prepared so that the same could be
filed in the Court for appropriate orders to be passed            C
thereupon. However, despite the said settlement, which was
mutually arrived at by the parties, on 17th January, 2011, when
the matter was listed for orders to be passed on the settlement
arrived at between the parties, an application filed by the
Petitioner was brought to the notice of the Court praying that    D
the settlement arrived at between the parties be annulled.
Thereafter, the matter was listed in-camera in Chambers and
we had occasion to interact with the parties in order to
ascertain the reason for change of heart. We found that while
the wife was wanting to rejoin her husband's company, the         E
husband was reluctant to accept the same. For reasons best
known to the Petitioner, he insisted that the mutual settlement
be annulled as he was not prepared to take back the
Respondent to live with him.
                                                                  F
     8. The attitude displayed by the Petitioner has once again
thrown open the decision of the High Court for consideration.
We agree with the view expressed by the High Court that in
looking into a complaint under Section 12 of the PWD Act,
2005, the conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into
force of the PWD Act, could be taken into consideration while     G
passing an order under Sections 18, 19 and 20 thereof. In our
view, the Delhi High Court has also rightly held that even if a
wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer
doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled
                                                                  H
to the protection of the PWD Act, 2005.
    872      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012] 1 S.C.R.


A       9. On facts it may be noticed that the couple has no
  children. Incidentally, the Respondent wife is at present residing
  with her old parents, after she had to vacate the matrimonial
  home, which she had shared with the Petitioner at Mathura,
  being his official residence, while in service. After more than
B 31 years of marriage, the Respondent wife having no children,
  is faced with the prospect of living alone at the advanced age
  of 63 years, without any proper shelter or protection and without
  any means of sustenance except for a sum of Rs.6,000/- which
  the Petitioner was directed by the Magistrate by order dated
c 8th December, 2006, to give to the Respondent each month.
  By a subsequent order dated 17th February, 2007, the
  Magistrate also passed a protection-cum-residence order
  under Sections 18 and 19 of the PWD Act, protecting the rights
  of the Respondent wife to reside in her matrimonial home in
D Mathura. Thereafter, on the Petitioner's retirement from service,
  the Respondent was compelled to vacate the accommodation
  in Mathura and a direction was given by the Magistrate to the
  Petitioner to let the Respondent live on the 1st Floor of House
  No.D-279, Nirman Vihar, New Delhi, and if that was not
E possible, to provide a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the
  Respondent towards rental charges for acquiring an
  accommodation of her choice.

        10. In our view, the situation comes squarely within the
  ambit of Section 3 of the PWD Act, 2005, which defines
F "domestic violence" in wide terms, and, accordingly, no
  interference is called for with the impugned order of the High
  Court. However, considering the fact that the couple is childless
  and the Respondent has herself expressed apprehension of her
  safety if she were to live alone in a rented accommodation, we
G are of the view that keeping in mind the object of the Act to
  provide effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed
  under the Constitution, who are victims of violence of any kind
  occurring within the family, the order of the High Court requires
  to be modified. We, therefore, modify the order passed by the
H High Court and direct that the Respondent be provided with a
           V.D. BHANOT v. SAVITA BHANOT                     873
                 [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

right of residence where the Petitioner is residing, by way of      A
relief under Section 19 of the PWD Act, and we also pass
protection orders under Section 18 thereof. As far as any
monetary relief is concerned, the same has already been
provided by the learned Magistrate and in terms of the said
order, the Respondent is receiving a sum of Rs.6,000/- per          B
month towards her expenses.

      11. Accordingly, in terms of Section 19 of the PWD Act,
2005, we direct the Petitioner to provide a suitable portion of
his residence to the Respondent for her residence, together with
all necessary amenities to make such residential premises C
properly habitable for the Respondent, within 29th February,
2012. The said portion of the premises will be properly
furnished according to the choice of the Respondent to enable
her to live in dignity in the shared household. Consequently, the
sum of Rs.10,000/- directed to be paid to the Respondent for D
obtaining alternative accommodation in the event the Petitioner
was reluctant to live in the same house with the Respondent,
shall stand reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.4,000/-, which will
be paid to the Respondent in addition to the sum of Rs.6,000/
- directed to be paid to her towards her maintenance. In other E
words, in addition to providing the residential accommodation
to the Respondent, the Petitioner shall also pay a total sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month to the Respondent towards her
maintenance and day-to-day expenses.
                                                                    F
     12. In the event, the aforesaid arrangement does not work,
the parties will be at liberty to apply to this Court for further
directions and orders. The Special Leave Petition is disposed
of accordingly.

       13. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.           G

R.P.                       Special Leave Petition disposed of.


                                                                    H