Summary
The Court set aside an ex parte direction allowing occupation of premises in which the parties admittedly had never lived together, and reversed withdrawal of the pending domestic-violence appeal to the High Court. The appeal was to be heard by a nominated Additional Sessions Judge; the underlying relationship and substantive claims were left undecided.
Issues
- Whether interim occupation could be ordered in premises never shared by the parties.
- Whether the pending statutory appeal should have been withdrawn to the High Court.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(f), 2(s), 17 and 19, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005The shared-household residence provisions did not sustain induction into these particular premises on the admitted facts. (¶ 14–18)
Held
- Although residence rights do not depend on proprietary title, the parties had never lived together in the property concerned. This was not a case of subsequent exclusion from that household, and the ex parte occupation order could not stand. (¶ 14–18)
- No sufficient reason supported withdrawal of the appeal from the Sessions Court. It also removed an additional forum for scrutiny available against an appellate decision. Adverse interim rulings at the claimant’s instance did not establish fault by the appellate judge. (¶ 19–26)
- The Court deliberately avoided deciding the asserted relationship or merits of the domestic-violence claim because the statutory appeal remained pending. (¶ 12–13)
Result
Both appeals allowed, parties to bear their own costs. Occupation and withdrawal orders set aside; Chief Justice requested to nominate a Bangalore ASJ for expeditious appeal disposal.