REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) NO. 3916 OF 2010

V.D. BHANOT … PETITIONER  Vs.

SAVITA BHANOT  … RESPONDENT

O R D E R

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, questioning the order passed by the learned  

Additional Sessions Judge on 18th September, 2009,

dismissing  the  appeal  filed  by  her  against  the  

order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 11th May,  

2009.

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  

before  the  Magistrate  under  Section  12  of  the  

Protection  of  Women  from  Domestic  Violence  Act,  

2005,  hereinafter  referred  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/residence  

order under Sections 18 and 19 of the above Act,  

2

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 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  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, which she claimed to be  

her  permanent  matrimonial  home.  The  learned  

3

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 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  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  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  

4

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 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  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-à-vis, the provisions of Sections 31 and 33 of  

the  PWD  Act,  2005,  and  after  examining  the  

statement 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  

5

Constitution that the Parliament enacted the PWD  

Act, 2005, in order to provide for some effective  

protection  of  rights  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 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 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

6. As  indicated  hereinbefore,  the  Special  Leave  

Petition is directed against the said order dated  

22nd March, 2010, passed by the Delhi High Court and  

the findings contained 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 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  

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  

7

between the parties, an application filed by the  

Petitioner was brought to the notice of the Court  

praying that 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 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.   

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  

8

into force of the PWD Act, could be taken into  

consideration while 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 to the protection of the PWD Act,  

2005.   

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  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  

9

Rs.6,000/- which the Petitioner was directed by the  

Magistrate  by  order  dated  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 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  

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,  

10

which defines “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 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 High Court and direct that the Respondent be  

provided  with  a  right  of  residence  where  the  

Petitioner  is  residing,  by  way  of  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  

11

in  terms  of  the  said  order,  the  Respondent  is  

receiving a sum of Rs.6,000/- per 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  

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  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  

12

Rs.6,000/- directed to be paid to her towards her  

maintenance.  In  other  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.

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.

……………………………………………J.                              (ALTAMAS KABIR)

New Delhi                       ……………………………………………J. Dated:07.02.2012               (J. CHELAMESWAR)  

13