2017 (5) TMI 1726 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court allows appeal, affirms jurisdiction of Small Causes Court for domestic violence counterclaim

Vaishali Abhimanyu Joshi Versus Nanasaheb Gopal Joshi

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court, the Small Causes Court, and the District Judge. It held that the ... Interpretation of statute - Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 qua the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - bar on entertainment on counter claim - whether counter claim by the Appellant seeking right Under Section 19 of Act, 2005 can be entertained in a suit filed against her Under Section 26 of Act, 1887 seeking a mandatory injunction directing her to stop using the suit flat and to remove her belongings therefrom? HELD THAT:- The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Act, 2005 was enacted by the Parliament to give effect to various international conventions - There cannot be any dispute that proceeding before the Judge, Small Causes Court is a legal proceeding and the Judge, Small Causes Court is a civil court. On the strength of Section 26 any relief available Under Section 18 to 22 of Act, 2005, thus, can also be sought by the aggrieved person. When the suit filed by the Plaintiff for determination or enforcement of his right as a licensor can be taken cognizance by Judge, Small Causes Court we fail to see that why the relief claimed by the Appellant in the Court of Small Causes within the meaning of Section 26 of Act. 2005 cannot be considered by the Judge, Small Causes Court. In facts of the present case, the bar and embargo under Item No. 11 of Schedule II read with Section 15 of Act, 1887 stand whittled down and engulfed by virtue of Section 26 Sub-section (1) as applicable in Maharashtra. Section 26 of the Act, 2005 has to be interpreted in a manner to effectuate the very purpose and object of the Act. Unless the determination of claim by an aggrieved person seeking any order as contemplated by Act, 2005 is expressly barred from consideration by a civil court, this Court shall be loath to read in bar in consideration of any such claim in any legal proceeding before the civil court - When the proceeding initiated by Plaintiff in the Judge, Small Causes Court alleged termination of gratuitous licence of the Appellant and prays for restraining the Appellant from using the suit flat and permit the Plaintiff to enter and use the flat, the right of residence as claimed by the Appellant is inter-connected with such determination and refusal of consideration of claim of the Appellant as raised in her counter claim shall be nothing but denying consideration of claim as contemplated by Section 26 of the Act, 2005 which shall lead to multiplicity of proceeding, which can not be the object and purpose of Act, 2005. The counter claim filed by the Appellant before Judge, Small Causes Court in Civil Suit was fully entertainable and courts below committed error in refusing to consider such claim - Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act, 2005) vis-à-vis the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act, 1887).2. Jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court to entertain a counterclaim under Section 19 of Act, 2005 in a suit filed under Act, 1887.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Section 26 of Act, 2005 vis-à-vis the Act, 1887:The primary issue in this appeal was whether a counterclaim by the Appellant seeking the right under Section 19 of Act, 2005 could be entertained in a suit filed against her under Section 26 of Act, 1887. The Appellant argued that Act, 2005 is a special Act with overriding effect over Act, 1887, and that Section 3(c) of Act, 1887 saves the applicability of special laws like Act, 2005. The court noted that Section 26 of Act, 2005 allows any relief under Sections 18 to 22 to be sought in any legal proceeding before a civil, family, or criminal court, which would include the Small Causes Court.2. Jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court:The High Court had dismissed the Appellant's writ petition, holding that the Small Causes Court could not entertain the counterclaim due to the express language in Section 15 and the Second Schedule of Act, 1887. However, the Supreme Court found that Section 26 of Act, 2005, which allows reliefs to be sought in any legal proceeding, should be given full effect. The court emphasized that the Small Causes Court is a civil court, and thus, the reliefs under Act, 2005 could be sought there.The court also considered the amendments made by the Maharashtra Act 24 of 1984 to Act, 1887, which inserted Section 26 and deleted Item No. 4 of the Second Schedule. This amendment allowed suits between licensors and licensees to be filed in the Small Causes Court, overriding contrary provisions in Act, 1887. The court concluded that the suit filed by the Plaintiff (Respondent) was essentially for the recovery of possession of the suit flat, and thus, the counterclaim seeking a right of residence under Section 19 of Act, 2005 was maintainable.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court, the 5th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, and the District Judge, Pune. It held that the counterclaim filed by the Appellant in Civil Suit No. 77 of 2013 was fully entertainable by the Judge, Small Causes Court, and needed to be considered in accordance with the law. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the Appellant's claim, which should be determined by the court in due course.