Summary
The daughter-in-law’s counterclaim for residence relief under the Domestic Violence Act was maintainable in the father-in-law’s Small Causes Court suit seeking her removal. Maharashtra’s special jurisdiction provision displaced the cited general exclusions, and Section 26 permitted the connected statutory relief in that civil proceeding. The residence claim’s merits remained open.
Issues
- Whether the Small Causes Court could entertain the Domestic Violence Act residence counterclaim in this suit.
Provisions considered
- Sections 19 and 26, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005Residence relief could be sought through a counterclaim in the connected civil proceeding, subject to determination on merits. (¶¶ 18–22, 35–39)
- Sections 15 and 26; Second Schedule, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, as amended in MaharashtraSection 26’s overriding licensor/licensee jurisdiction displaced the relied-upon general exclusion in this possession-related suit. (¶ 25–30)
- Order VIII Rule 6A and Order L, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Counterclaims were not excluded from the applicable Small Causes Court procedure. (¶ 21–22)
Held
- The father-in-law’s suit, though framed through injunctions, was effectively for possession following alleged termination of a gratuitous licence. The court empowered to hear that claim could consider the interconnected residence counterclaim. (¶¶ 26–30, 36–37)
- Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act should effectuate its protective object and avoid needless multiple proceedings. The Court did not need to resolve an abstract conflict between two special enactments here. (¶ 35–36)
- Only entertainability was decided; neither residence entitlement nor the allegations’ merits were adjudicated. (¶ 38–39)
Result
Appeal allowed; contrary orders of the High Court, District Judge and Small Causes Court set aside. Counterclaim to be considered on merits in accordance with law.