The Supreme Court held that the pending proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act or any other Residence temporary order or final passed under it is not an injunction for initiating or continuing any civil proceedings, which are related to the matter of similar such orders/proceedings. The three-judge Bench passed the order under the Domestic Violence Act whether temporary or final shall be applicable. It has to be given the power as one of the evidence in the civil trial but the value of such evidence is limited.
The petitioner Satish Ahuja filed a complaint against Sneha Ahuja, his daughter in law, for the compulsory and stable embargo along with the recovery of the damages he had to face. He pointed out that the respondent has filed a complaint to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The acting order directs the petitioner not to separate and also not to remove the defendant without the order of the court has been passed. He inquired about the status of employment of the respondent as a daughter-in-law during the maintenance of marriage with the son could be said to be liberal in nature and the respondent is not entitled to claim a right of residence against the petitioner who has no responsibility to maintain her during the lifetime of her husband.
In the statement, Sneha Ahuja claimed that the suit property is a shared household as per the provision of Section 2 (s) of the Act (Definitions) and hence she has the right to stay in the shared household.
The court ruled the suit by permitting his submission, taking note of the admission made by the respondent in her pleadings that the petitioner to be the owner of the property. The High Court pointed out that the question the proceedings could not have been simply announced by the Trial Court on the basis of the title without considering the effect of the statutory right in favour of the defendant. The High Court remanded the case back to Trial Court.