VAISHALI ABHIMANYU JOSHIversusNANASAHEB GOPAL JOSHI

                            [2017] 5 S.C.R. 488



A                    VAISHALI ABHIMANYU JOSHI
                                     v.
                      NANASAHEB GOPAL JOSHI
                       (Civil Appeal No. 6448 of2017)
B                              MAY09,2017
              [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
          Protection of Women from Dome,stic Violence Act, 2005:
          ss. 19 and 26 - Suit filed by father-in-law (respondent) against
C. daughter-in-law (appellant) - Before Small Causes Court - Seeking
   possession of the suit flat from his daughter-in-law - Claiming
   himself to be licensor and the appellant as gratuitous licensee :____
   Counter-claim by the appellant seeking order of residence in the
   suit flat u/s. 19 of 2005 Act - Entertainability of the counter-claim
   - Held: Small Causes Court is a Civil court and proceedings before
D it are legal proceedings - On the strength of s. 26 of 2005 Act, any
   relief available u/ss. 18 to 22 of 2005 Act can be sought by aggrieved
   person - Order L of CPC does not bar filing of counter-claim (under
   Or. VIII, r. 6A CPC) before Small Causes Court - 2005 Act was
   enacted to secure a social purpose - s. 26 thereof has to be
E interpreted in a mannerto effectuate the ve1y purpose and object
   of the Act - Court not to read in a bar, unless any order as
   contemplated under 2005 Act is expressly barred from consideration
   by a civil court- Right of residence as claimed by the appellant in
   her counter-claim is inter-connected with determination of issue in
   the suit filed before civil court - Denial of consideration of the
F counter-claim shall amount to denial of consideration of claim as
   contemplated by s.26 of 2005 Act and would lead to multiplicity of
   proceedings, which- cannot be the object and purpose of 2005 Act
   - Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 - ss. 15 and 26 (as
   amended by Maharashtra Act 24 of 1984) - Code of Civil Procedure,
G 1908 - Or. VIII, r. 6A and Or. L.
          Allowing the appeal, the Court
        HELD: 1. The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887
  was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to Courts
  of Small Causes established beyond the Presidency-towns.
H Section 15 deals with jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes.
                                     488
    VAISHALI ABHIMANYU JOSHI v. NANASAHEB GOPAL                         489
                       JOSHI
                   .                             '
Section 15 refers to Schedule II. Sched·ule II enumerates the A
category of suits which are excepted from the cognizance of Court
of Small Causes. [Paras 13 and 15] [496-E-F; 497-C-D]
      2. The Protection of Women froin Domestic Violence Act,
2005 has been enacted to provide for more effective protection
of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who            B
are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family
and for matters co'nnected therewith or incidental thereto. Act,
2005 was enacted by the Parliament to give effect to various
international conventions. [Para 17] [498-D-E]
       Kunapareddy alias Nookala Shanka Balaji v.                       c
       Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Another [2016] 2 SCR
       608 : (2016) 11 sec 774 - referred to.
        3. Section 26 of the Act is a special provision which has
  been enacted in the Domestic Violence Act. Although, Chapter
  IV of the Act containing Section 12 to Section 29 contains the        D
· procedure for obtaining orders of reliefs by making application
  before the Magistrate whereas steps taken by the Magistrate
  and different categories of reliefs could be granted as noted in
  Section 18 to 22 and certain other provisions. Section 26 provides
  that any relief available under Section 18 to 22 may also be sought
  in any legal proceedings, before a civil court, family court or a     E
  criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the responden(.
  The appellant has set up her counter-claim on the basis of this
  Section before the Judge, Small Causes Court. [Para 19) [500-G-
  H; 501"A-B]
       4. There cannot be any dispute that proceeding before the        F
 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 availabl!! under Section 18 to 22 of Act, 2005, thus,
 can als.o .be sough~ by the aggrieved person. [Para 20][501-E-F]
       5. Order VIII rule 6A of CPC provides for counter-claim          G
 by defendant. Order L of CPC enumerates the provisions which
 shall not extend to the Provincial Small Cause Court. The
 provisions which have been excepted from applicability of the
 Small Causes Court do no include Order VIII, thus, eounter claim
 can· very well be filed by the defendant in a suit before the Small    H
490            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      (2017] 5 S.C.R.


A     Causes Court. (Paras 21, 22) (501-F; 502-D]
             6. The Act, 1887 has been amended in the State of
      Maharashtra by Maharashtra Act 24 of 1984 w.e.f. 1.1.1985.
      Chapter IVA has been inserted in Act, 1887 containing Section
      26, 26A, 26B and 26C. Item No.4 of Second Schedule which
B     included "a suit for the possession of immovable property or for
      the recovery of an interest in such property" had been deleted
      by Maharashtra Act, 24 of 1984. Section 26 of 1887 Act begins
      with 'non obstante' clause which shall override all contrary
      provisions contained in Act, 1887. Maharashtra Act 24 of 1984
      has been brought by inserting Section 26 and by deleting Item
c     No. 4 of Second Schedule only to make suit between licensor and
      licensee. to be filed before the Judge, Small Causes Court. The
      suit filed by the plaintiff is virtually a suit for possession of the
      suit flat from the appellant who is occupying the same. (Paras 25,
      28] (502-F-G; 504-A-C]
D         7. "Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this
    Act" as used in Section 26(1) of Act, 1887, are words of
    expression of the widest amplitude engulfing the contrary
    provisions contained in the Act. The suit in question has been
    filed by the plaintiff for enforcement of his right as a licensor
 E after allegedly terminating the gratuitous licence of the appellant.
    Item No.11 of Schedule II covers determination or enforcement
   .of any such right or interest in immovable property. But by virtue
    of Section 26 sub-Section (1) as applicable in State ofMaharast,tra,
    Item No.11 of Schedule 2 has to give way to section 26(1) and a
    suit between licensor and licensee which is virtually a suit for·
 F recovery of immovable property is fully maintainable in Judge,
    Small Causes Court that is why the suit has been instituted by
    the plaintiff in the Judge, Small Causes Court claiming the right
    and interest in the immovable property. (Para 29) (504-D-F]
         8. When the suit filed by the plaintiff for determination or
 G enforcement of his right as a licensor can be taken cognizance
   by Judge, Small Causes Court, the relief claimed by the appellant
   in the Court of Small Causes within the meaning of Section 26 of
   Act, 2005 can also be considered by the Judge, Small Causes
   Court. In the facts of the present case, the bar and embargo
 H under Item No.11 of Schedule II read with Section 15 of Act,
   VAISHALI ABHIMANYU JOSHI v. NANASAHEB GOPAL                        491
                      JOSHI

1887 stand whittled down and engulfed by virtue of Section 26         A
sub-Section (1) as applicable in Maharashtra. A statutory provision
containing non obstante clause has to be given full effect. [Paras
30 and 31) (504-F-HJ
      Union of India and another v. G.M. Kokil and others
      1984 (Supp) SCC 196 : (1984] SCR 292 - relied on.               B
      9. 2005 Act was enacted to secure a social purpose. The
provisions of the Act have to be construed widely. 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 c
by Act, 2005 is expressly barred from consideration by a civil
courl, 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 D
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, E
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 was fuUy-
entertainable and courts below committed error in refusing to
consider such claim. [Paras 35, 36 and 37] [506-D; 507-B-EJ
                                                                     F
      Hirai P. Harsora and others v. Kusum Narottamdas
      Harsora and others 2016 (10) SCC 165 - relied on.
      Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank 2000 (4) SCC 406 :
      [2000] 2 SCR 1102; Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fair Growth
      Financial Services Ltd. .& ors. 2001 (3) SCC 71 : (2001)        G
      1 SCR 932; Bank of India v. Ketan Parekh 2008 (8)
      sec 148 : (20081 9 scR 346 - cited.
                      Case Law Reference
      [2016) 2 SCR 608         referred to             Para 17
                                                                      H
492            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 5 S.C.R.


A           (1984) SCR 292              relied on        Para 31
            [2000) 2 SCR 1102           cited            Para35
            [2001) 1 SCR 932            cited            Para 35
            (2008) 9 SCR 346            cited            Para 35
B           2016 (10) sec 165           relied on        Para35
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6448
      of2017.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 07 .07.2016 of the High Court
C     of Judicature at Bombay, in Civil Appellate Jurisdiction in Writ Petition
      No. 1550of2016.
            Nikhil Majithia, Adv. for the Appellant.
           Vinay Navare, Ms. Gwen Karthika, Dr. Raindra Chingale, Ms.
      Abha R. Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.
D           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
             2. This appeal raises an important question pertaining to
      interpretation of Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
 E    Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter ~eferred to as "Act, 2005") qua the
      Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, I 887(hereinafter to referred to as
      "Act, 1887") as amended in the State of Maharashtra. The question is
      as to whether counter claim by the appellant seeking right under Section
      19 ofAct, 2005 can be entertained in a suit filed against her under Section
      26 of Act, 1887 seeking a -mandatory injunction directing her to stop
 F    using the suit flat and to remove her belongings therefrom.
              3. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 7'h
      July, 2016 of High Court ofJudicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.1550
      of2016 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the
      judgment and order of 51h Additional Judge, Small Causes Court dated
 G    5•h November, 2014 and order passed by the District Judge, Pune dated
       l 71h December, 2015 was dismissed.
             4. Necessary facts of the case need to be noted for deciding the
      issue raised are:
             The appellant got married with oneAbhimanyu who is son of the·
 H
       VAISHALI ABHIMANYU JOSHI v. NANASAHEB GOPAL                                493
                 JOSHI [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

    respondent on l 0.02.2000. The appellant started residing in the suit flat    A
    No.4, 4514, Arati Society Shilavihar Colony, Paud Fata, Pune since 2004
    alongwith her husband. The flat was alloted ~o the respondent by the
    Society in the year 1971. On 13th June, 2011, the husband of appellant
    left her at the suit flat and shifted to live with his parent at Mrutunjay
    Society. A daughter, namely, lshwari was born from the wedlock of the
                                                                                  B
    appellant and the Abhimanyu, who was about 9 years in the year 2014.
    The respondent along with his wife had be~n residing in another flat
    nearby. The appellant was treated with cruelty by her husband and other
    members of the family. A suit for divorce on the basis of cruelty being
0
    P.A.No. 23/2011 was filed by the appellant against her husband. A notice
    was sent on behalf of the respondent to the appellant on 23:01.2013           c
    revoking the gratuitous licence and asking the appellant to stop the use
    and occupation of the suit flat. The appellant replied the notice. The
    resp0ndent filed Suit No. 77/2013 in the Small Causes Court, Pune seeking
    for following reliefs:
          "A. By an order of mandatory injunction the defendant may D
          be directed to stop the use and occupation of the suit flat and
          remove her belongings therefrom.
          B. The defendant may be restrained by an qrder of perpetual
          prohibitory injunction from using/occupying the suit flat.
          C. The defendant may be restrained by an order of perpetual E
          prohibitory injunction from obstructing the plai11tiff a11d his .
          family members to possess, use and occupy the suit flat.
          D. Interim orders in terms of ctause. A,B,C above may be.
          passed.
                                                                                  F
          E. Costs of the suit may be awarded to the plaintifffrom the
          defendant.
          R Any other just and other equitable orders in the interest of
          justice may please be passed. "
           S. The appellant filed a written statement in the suit pleading that   G
    she was residing in the suit flat since 26.01.2004 along with her husband
    and daughter. Her husband who was also.residing along with her left
    her on 13.Q6.2011 to live with the respondent. It was pleaded that suit
    flat was intended to be used by the joint family as a joint family property
    and although the agreement of purchase of the suit flat bears the name
                                                                                  H
494            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 5 S.C.R.


A     of the respondent, the suit flat has been used as joint family property.
      The allegation that respondent is the sole owner of the flat was denied.
      In her written statement a counter claim was also laid by the appellant.
      In the counter claim following reliefs have been claimed by the appellant:
             "i. The suit & injunctionapplication at Exh.5 of the plaintiff
B               may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs.
            ii. It may be declared that the suit flat is the shared household.
             iii. The plaintiff. his agents, representatives, relatives or anyone
                claiming through him may kindly be restrained by an
                injunction from dispossessing, disturbing the possession
 c              of the defendant in any manner from the suit flat, as per
                S.19 of D. V. Act.
             iv. The plaintiff. his agents, representatives, relatives or
                 anyone claiming through him may kindly be restrained by
                 an injunction from entering in the suit flat as per S.19 of
 D               DV Act.
             v. The plaintiff. his agents, representatives, relatives or anyone
                claiming through him may kindly be restrained by an
                injunction from alienating, disposing off, encumbering the
                suit flat and/or creating any of third party right, title and
 E              interest in the suit flat, or renouncing the rights in the suit
                flat as per S.19 of DV Act.
             vi. Any other order in the interest of justice and equity may
                 kindlybe passed in favour of the defendant and oblige. "
            6. In the counter claim the appellant prayed for an order of
 F
      residence in suit flat under Section 19 of the Act, 2005.
             7. The respondent who was the plaintiff in the suit has filed an
    application dated 14.07.2014 under Section 9A(Maharashtra
     Amendment) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the application,
     the respondent .claimed that declaration sought by the appellant in the
 G . suit is not maintainable, hence, a preliminary issue under Section 9A of
     CPC be framed. The application was objected by the appellant by filing
     objection on 16.08.2014. The appellant claimed that since she has been
     subjected to domestic violence she is entitled for the reliefs sought by
     way of counter claim as provided in the Act, 2005. It was contended
   VAISHALI ABHIMANYU JOSHI v. NANASAHEB GOPAL                               495
             JOSHI [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

that the reliefs sought by way of counter claim are not barred as per        A
Section 15 of Act, 1887. The trial court framed preliminary issue "as to
whether the Court has jurisdiction to ente1iain the counter claim''. Judge
Small Causes Court by its judgment and order dated 05.11.2014 held
that Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim. Revision
was filed against the order passed by the Small Causes Court before the
                                                                             B
District Judge. The District Judge rejected the revision on 17.12.2015
which order was challenged by the appellant by means of writ petition
which has been dismissed by judgment dated 07 .07.2016. The High Court
has held that in view of the express language in Section 15 as also the
Second Schedule ofAct, 1887, the Small Causes Court constituted under
Act, 1887 cannot entertain and try the counter claim. Aggrieved by the       C
order of the High Court, the appellant has come up in this appeal.
      8. We have heard Shri Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel for the
appellant and Shri Vinay Navare, learned counsel for the respondent.
       9. Shri Nikhil Majithia, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that courts below erred in law in taking the view that counter claim of D
the appellant is barred by the Act, 1887. He submits that Act, 2005 is a
special Act which has been enacted to provide various remedies and the
special Act shall have overriding effect over Act, 1887. He submits that
courts below erred in law in not adverting to this aspect of the matter.
Learned counsel has further placed reliance on Section 3(c) of the Act, E
1887. It is submitted that Section 3(c) itself saves applicability of local
law or any special law and the Act, 2005 being a special law it will have
to be given full effect and Section 3(c) itself carves out an exception. It
is submitted that in the event of conflict between a general statute and a
special statute, special statutes always have overriding effect on a general
statute. He further submits that even if both are treated to be a special F
statute, latter in point of time shall override the Act, 1887 and he further
referring to the Section 26 of Act, 2005 contends that a relief under
Sections 18 to 22 of Act, 2005 can be sought in any legal proceeding
before a Civil Court, Family Court and Criminal Court. He submits that
Court of Provincial Small Cause being a civil Court remedy under Section G
26 is fully available to the appellant.
       I 0. Shri Vinay Navare, learned counsel for the respondent refuting
the submission oflearned counsel for the appellant contends that counter
claim of the appellant is clearly barred by Section 15 read with Schedule
II of the Act, 1887. He has referred to Item Nos.11, 17 and 19. He           H
496             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 5 S.C.R.



A     submits that Provincial Small Cause Court is a Court which has limited
      jurisdiction. Referring to provisions of Order L of Civil Procedure Code
      he submits that only limited provisions of Civil Procedure Code have
      been made applical>le which indicates that no substantive issue can be
      decided by Provincial Small Cause Court. Learned counsel further made
      reference to Section 12 and Section 18 ofAct, 1887, by which, according
8
      to him, the Registrar, who is a Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court, is
      empowered to try certain suits which the Judge, Provincial Small Cause
      Court by general or special order directs. He submits that power given
      to Registrar to decide certain issues also militate against the idea that
      substantive issues can be decided by a Judge, Small Causes Court.
 c          11. Learned counsel for the parties relied on various decisions of
      this Court and Bombay High Court which shall be referred to while
      considering submissions in detail.
            12. We have considered the above submissions of the parties and
      perused the record.
D
              13. As noted above, the only question to be answered in this appeal
      is as to whether the counter claim filed by the appellant seeking right of
      residence in accordance with Section 19 of Act, 2005 in a suit filed by
      the respondent, her father~in-law under the Provincial Small Cause Courts
      Act, 1887 is entertainable or not. Whether the provisions of the Act,
 E    1887 bar entertainment of such counter claim, is the moot question to be
      answered. The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 was enacted
      to consolidate and amend the law relating to Courts of Small Causes
      established beyond the Presidency-towns. Under Section 5, the State
      Government is empowered to establish Court of Small Causes. Section
 F    15 deals with jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes. Section 15 which is
      relevant for the present purposes is extracted below:
             "Section 15. Cognizance ofsuits by Courts ofSmall Causes.-
             (!) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the
             suits specifieain the Second Schedule as suits expected from
 G           the cognizance ofa Court of Small Causes.
             (2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and .
             to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force,
             all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed
             five hundred rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small
 H
   VAISHALI ABHIMANYU JOSHI v. NANASAHEB GOPAL                               497
             JOSHI [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      Causes.                                                                A
      (3) Subject as aforesaid, the [State Government] may, by .order
      in writing, direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the
      value does not exceed one thousand rupees shall be
      cognizable by a Court of Small Causes mentioned in the
      order."                                                                B
      14. Section 17 provides that the procedure prescribed in the Civil
Procedure Code, shall save in ·so far as is otherwise provided by that
Code or by 1887 Act, be the procedure followed in a Court of Small
Causes, in all suits cognizable by it and in all proceedings arising out of
such suits.                                                                 C
       15. Section 23 provides for return of plaint in suits involving
questions of title. Section 15 refers to Schedule II. Schedule II
enumerates the category of suits which are excepted from the cognizance
of Court of Small Causes. For the purposes of this case Item Nos.4, 11,
I 7 which may be relevant for the present case are extracted below:          D
                "(4) a suit for the possession of immoveable property
      or for the recovery of an interest in such property;
               (11) a suit for the determination or enforcement of
      any other right to or interest in immoveable property;
                                                                             E
                 (17) a suit to obtain in injunction; "
       I 6. The submission which has been pressed by the learned counsel
for the respondent is that the High Court for holding that Judge, Small
Causes Court has no jurisdiction has relied on Section 15 read with clause
(II) of Second Schedule. In paragraph 14_ofthejudgment, the High
                                                                             F
Court gives the following reasoning for deciding against the appellant:
       "14. As noted earlier, c/ause(ll) of the Second Schedule of
      P.S.C.C. Act which is one of the excepted categories does not
      empower the Small Causes Court to entertain and try the suit
      for the determination or enforcement ofany other right lo or
      interest in immovable property. In the counter claim the G
      defendant has prayed for residence orders as provided in
      Section I 9 of D. V. Act as also for declaration that the suit flat
       is the shared household as per section l(s) of D. V. Act and
      also for injunction restraining the plaintiff (i) from
                                                                          H
498            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 5 S.C.R.



A           dispossessing her from the suit flat and disturbing her
            possession in any manner in the suit flat, (ii) from entering
            suit flat, and (iii) from creating third party interest as per
            Section 19 of D. V. Act. It is not in dispute and cannot be
            disputed that the counter claim is to be tried as a suit. The
            defendant seeks determination or enforcement of her right
 B
            or interest in the suit flat i.e. immovable property. In view
            thereof, counter claim set up by the defendant cannot gone
            into by the Small Causes Court in view of express language
            of Section 15 and Second Schedule of P.S.C.C. Act. If the
            contention of Mr. Kulkarni is accepted, it will enlarge the
 c          jurisdiction of Small Causes Court and the same will be
            contrary to mandate of Section 15 and Second Schedule of
            P.S.C.C. Act."
              17. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
      has been enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights
 D    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. One of us (A.K.
      Sikri,J .) had occasion to consider the purposes of enacting the Act, 2005
      in Kunapareddy alias Nookala Shanka Balaji vs. Kunapareddy
 E    Swarna Kumari and anoteltr, (2016) 11 SCC 774. In paragraph 12
      of the judgment following has been stated:
               "12. Jn fact, the very purpose of enacting the DV Act was to
            provide for a remedy which is an amalgamation of civil rights
            of the complainant i.e. aggrieved person. Intention was to
 F          protect women against violence of any kind. e~pecially that
            occurring within the family as the civil law does not address
            this phenomenon in its entirety. It is treated as an offence
            under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860. The purpose
            of enacting the law was to provide a remedy in the civil law
 G          for the protection of women from being victims of domestic
            violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence
             in the society. It is for this reason, that the scheme of the Act
            provides that in the first instance, the order that would be
            passed by the Magistrate, on a complaint by the aggrieved
            person, would be of a civil nature and if the said order is
 H
VAISHALI ABHIMANYU JOSHI v. NANASAHEB GOPAL                        499
          JOSHI [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

  violated, it assumes the character of criminality. In order to A
  demonstrate it, we may reproduce the introduction as well as
  relevant portions of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of
  the said Act, as follows:
  "Introduction
 The Vienna Accord of 1994 and the Beijing Declaration and B
 the Platform for Action (1995) have acknowledged that
 domestic violence is undoubtedly a human rights issue. The
 United Nations Committee on Convention on Elimination of
 All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in its General
 Recommendations has recommended that State parties should c
 act to protect women against violence of any kind, especially
 that occurring within the family. The phenomenon of domestic
 violence in India is widely prevalent but has remained invisible
 in the public domain. The civil law does not address this
 phenomenon in its entirety.· Presently, where a woman is
 subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, it is an D
 offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In
 order to provide a remedy in the civil law for the protection of
 women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent
 the occurrence of domestic violence in the society the
 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Bill was E
 introduced in Parliament.
  Statement of Objects and Reasons
    I. Domestic violence is undoubtedly a human rights issue
  and serious deterrent to development. The Vienna Accord of
  1994 and the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action F
  (1995) have acknowledged this. The United Nations
  Committee on Convention on Elimination of All Forms of
  Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in its General
  Recommendation No. XII (1989) has recommended that State
  parties should act to protect women against violence of any G
  kind especially that occurring within the family.
                          *        *       *
    3. It is, therefore, proposed to enact a law keeping in view
  the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the
                                                                   H
500            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] S S.C.R.


A           Constitution to provide for a remedy under the civil law which
            is intended to protect the women from being victims ofdomestic
            violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence
            in the society.
              4. The Bill, inter a/ia, seeks to provide for the following-
B
                      *        *       *
              (ii) It defines the expression· "domestic violence" to' include
            actual abuse or threat or abuse that is physical, sexual,
            verbal, emotional or economic. Harassment by way of
            unlawful dowry demands to the woman or her relatives would
c           also be covered under this definition.
              (iii) It provides for the rights of women to secure housing. It
            also provides for the right of a woman to reside in her
            matrimonial home or shared household, whether or not she
            has any title or rights in such home or household. This right
D           is secured by a residence order, which is passed by the
            Magistrate.
               (iv) It empowers the Magistrate to pass protection orders in
            favour of the aggrieved person to prevent the respondent from
            aiding or committing an act of domestic violence or any other
 E          specified act, entering a workplace or any other p_lace
            frequented by the aggrieved person, attempting to
             communicate with her, isolating any assets used by both the
            parties and causing violence to the aggrieved person, her
             relatives or others who provide her assistance from the
             domestic violence. "
 F
          18. Section 17 provides for right to reside in a shared household
   by aggrieved person. Section 18 empowers the Magistrate to pass
   protection orders of different categories as enumerated in section itself.
   Section 19 provides for passing of a residence order in favour of an
 G aggrieved person who is subjected to domestic violence.
              19. Section 26 of the Act is a special provision which has been
      enacted in the enactment. Although, Chapter IV of the Act containing
      Section 12 to Section 29 contains the procedure for obtaining orders of
      reliefs by making application before the Magistrate whereas steps taken
      by the Magistrate and different categories of reliefs could be granted as
 H
   VAISHALI ABHIMANYU JOSHI v. NANASAHEB GOPAL                               501
             JOSHI [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

noted in Section 18 to 22 and certain other provisions. Section 26 provides A
that any relief available under Section 18 to 22 may also be sought in any
legal proceedings, before a civil court, family court or a criminal court,
affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent. Section 26 is material ·
for the present case since the appellant has set up her counter claim on
the basis of this Section before the Judge, Small Causes Court. Section
26 is extracted below:                                                      B

        "26. Relief in other suits and legal proceedings.-
      (1) Any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22
      may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil
      court, family court or a criminal court, affecting the aggrieved       c
      person and the respondent whether such proceeding was,
      initiated before or after the commencement of this Act.
      (2)Any relief referred to in.sub section (1) may be sought/or
      in addition to and along with any other relief that the
      aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding D
      before a civil or criminal court.
      ill In case any reliefhas been obtained by the aggrieved
      person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under
      this Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the
      grant of such relief "                                     ·           E
      20. 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.
                                                                             F
      21. Order VIII Rule 6A provides for counter claim by defendant.
Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC is quoted below:
      "6A. Co11nter claim by defendant.- (1) A defendant in a suit
      may, in addition to his right of pleading a set off under rule
      6, set up, by way of counter claim against the claim of the G
      plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action
      accruing to the. defendant against the plaintiff either before
      or after the filing of to suit but before the defendant has
      delivered his defence qr ~efore the time limited for delivering
      his defence has expired, whether such counter claim is in the
                                                                      H
502            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 5 S.C.R.


A           nature of a claim for damages or not:
            Provided that such counter claim shall not exceed the
            pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
            (2) Such counter claim shall have the same effect as a cross
            suit so as to enable the court to pronounce a final judgment
B           in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter
            claim.
            (3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement
            in answer to the counter claim of the defendant within such
            period as may be fixed by the court.
 c
            (4) The counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed
            by the rules applicable to plaints. •·
             22. Order L of CPC enumerates the provisions which shall not
      extend to the Provincial Small Cause Court. The provisions which have
 D    been excepted from applicability of the Small Causes Court do not include
      Order VIII, thus, counter claim can very well be filed by the defendant
      in a suit before the Small Causes Court.
            23. We have noted above the reasons given by the High Court
      holding that Provincial Small Cause Court cannot entertain the counter
      claim filed by the defendant who is appellant before us.
 E
             24. The High Court refers to Item No. I I of Second Schedule
      which is "a suit for the determination or enforcement of any other right
      to or interest in immovable property". It appears that the High Court
      had taken the view that the right under Section 26 ofAct, 2005 as claimed
      by the appellant involves the determination or enforcement of any right
 F
      to or interest in immovable property.
             25. The Act, 1887 has been amended in the State of Maharashtra
      by Maharashtra Act 24of1984 w.e.f. 1.1.1985. Chapter IVA has been
      inserted in Act, 1887 containing Section 26, 26A, 26B and 26C. Section
      26 is quoted as below:
 G
            "26. Suits or proceedings between licensors and licensees or
            landlords and tenants for recovery ofpossession of immovable
            property and licence fees or rent, except those to which other
            Acts apply, to lie in Court of Small Causes.-

 H
   VAISHALI ABHIMANYU JOSHI v. NANASAHEB GOPAL                                 503
             JOSHI [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      (1) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act, A
      but subject to the provision of sub-section (2), the Court of
      Small Causes shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try all
      suits and proceedings between in licensor and licensee, or a
      landlord and tenants, relating to the recovery of possession
      of any immovable property situated in the area within the local B
      limits of.the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes, or
      relating to the recovery of the licence fee or charges or rent
      therefor, irrespective of the value of the subject matter of such
      suits or proceedings.
      (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to suits            C
      or proceedings for the recovery of possession of any
      immovable property or of licence fee or charges or rent
      thereof. to which the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel
      and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the Bombay
      Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, the Bombay
      Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1919 or the                       D
      Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, or
      any law for the time being in force, apply. "
       26. Section 26 sub-Section (1) begins with "notwithstanding
anything contained elsewhere in this Act". In the suit. which was
filed by the respondent before the Judge, Small Causes Court, the plaintiff    E
(respondent herein) has claimed himself to be licensor and appellant as
gratuitous licensee. In paragraph 9 of the plaint following has been pleaded
by the plaintiff:
       "9. The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant has falsely stated
     . in the Marriage petition bearing PA No.2312011 that she is in F
       actual and physical possession of the suit flat even though
       she has been in use of the suit flat only as a gratuitous
       licensee. The plaintiff through his advocate served a notice
       to the Defendant on 23.01.2013, revoking the gratuitous
       license and asking the Defendant to stop the use and
     ·occupation of the suit flat ... "                                G
      27. Although the relief which has been claimed by the plaintiff
does not specifically contain any relief regarding recovery of possession
from the appellant but the reliefs sought for indicate that the appellant is
sought to be restrained from using the suit flat.
                                                                               H
504             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 5 S.C.R.



A            28. It is relevant to note that Item No.4 of Second Schedule which
      included "a suit for the possession of immovable property or for the
      recovery of an interest in such property" had been deleted by Maharasthra
      Act 24 of 1984. Section 26 begins with 'non obstante' clause which
      shall override all contrary provisions contained in Act, 1887. Maharasthra
      Act 24of1984 has been brought by inserting Section 26 and by deleting
B
      Item No.4 of Second Schedule only to make suit between licensor and
      licensee to be filed before the Judge, Small Causes Court. The suit filed
      by the plaintiff is virtually a suit for possession of the suit flat from the
      appellant who is occupying the same. Plaintiff alleged in the plaint that
      the gratuitous licence of the appellant has been terminated on 23.01.2013'
c     hence, appellant is not entitled to use the flat and is liable to remove her
      belongings.
              29. "Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act"
      as used in Section 26( I) of Act, 1887 are words of expression of the
      widest amplitude engulfing the contrary provisions contained in the Act.
 D    The suit in question has been filed by the plaintiff for enforcement of his
      right as a licensor after allegedly terminating the gratuitous licence of
      the appellant. On a plain reading Item No. I I of Schedule II covers
      determination or enforcement of any such right or interest in immovable
      property. But by virtue of Section 26 sub-Section (I) as applicable in
      State of Maharasthra, Item No.I I of Schedule 2 has to give way to
 E    Section 26(1) and a suit between licensor and licensee which is virtually
      a suit for recovery ofimmovable property is fully maintainable in Judge,
      Small Causes Court that is why the suit has been instituted by the plaintiff
      in the Judge, Small Causes Court claiming the right and interest in the
      immovable property.
 F          30. 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
      ofAct, 2005 cannot be considered by the Judge, Small Causes Court. In
 G    facts of the present case, the bar and embargo under Item No. I I of
      Schedule II read_with Section 15 of Act, 1887 stand whittled down and
      engulfed by virtue of Section 26 sub-Section (I) as applicable in
      Maharashtra.
            31. A statutory provision containing 11011 obstante clause has to
 H    be given full effect. This Court in Union of India and another vs.
      VAISHALI ABHIMANYU JOSHI v. NANASAHEB GOPAL                                SOS
                JOSHI [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

GM. Kokil and otllers, 1984 (Supp) SCC 196 has laid down in                      A
paragraph 11 as below:
       "11 .... It is well-known that a non obstante clause is a
       legislative device which is usually employed to give overriding
       effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that
       may be found either in the same enactment or some other B
       enactment, that is to say, to avoid the operation and effect of
       all contrary provisiOns. "Thus the non obstante clause in
       Section 70, namely, "notwithstanding anything contained in
       that Act" must mean notwithstanding anything to the contrary
       contained in that Act and as such it must refer to the exempting
       provisions which would be contrary to the general C
       applicability of the Act... "
      32. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a
judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.5648of2015,
Ambreen Aklroon vs. Aditya Aurn Paudwal and Ors. Decided on 41h
August, 201S. The issue which was involved in the said case has been             D
noted in paragraph 2 which is to the following effect:
        "2. This Writ Petition involves a question of law as to whether
        any relief can be sought against the relative of the responde/lf
        husband in the proceedings filed under Section 26 of the
        Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the                E
        Family Court ? "
      33. After considering the provisions of Act, 200S and certain
precedents, the Bombay High Court has laid down following in paragraph
18:
                                                                         F
        "18. As a question of law is raised before this Court, the Court
        has restricted its finding only to that extent and answered
        that the relatives of the husband being respondents under
        Section 2(q) of the D V Act can be made party respondents
        before the Family Court if the proceedings specified under
        Section 26 of the D. V. Act are preferred. "                     G
      34. In the present case, the issue which is raised is entirely different
and pertains to the jurisdiction of Small Causes Court to entertain counter
claim filed by the appellant seeking an order of residence. The above
judgment is not relevant for answering the issue raised in the present
case.                                                                            H
      506          .SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 5 S.C.R.



      A         35. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance. on
        judgments of this Court in Allahabad Bank vs. Canara Ba11k, 2000(4)
        SCC 406; Solidaire India Ltd. vs. Fair Growth Financial Services
        Ltd. & ors., 2001 (3) SCC 71 and Bank of India vs. Ketan Parekh,
        2008 (8) SCC 148 for the proposition that a special Act overrides a
        general Act and when a conflict is found in two special Acts, the special
      B
        Act latter in point of time has to prevail. He further contends that dominant
        purpose oftheAct has to be looked into while deciding the question as to
        which of the Act shall prevail over other. In the facts of the present case
        especially Section 26 as inserted in the State of Maharashtra by
        MaharasthraAct 24of1984, it is not necessary to enter into the issue of
      c conflict between Act, 1887 and Act, 2005. We have already observed
         above that the suit in the nature of present suit was cognizable before
        the Judge, Small Causes Court, hence, in the said suit determination of
         claim of the appellant seeking a right of residence under Section 19 is
'.'      also not excluded from consideration. It is further to be noted that Act,
      D 2005 was enacted to secure a social purpose. The provisions of the Act
         have to be construed widely. This Court in Hirai P. Harsora and others
         vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and others, 2016 (JO) SCC 165
         had occasion to consider the ambit and scope of Act, 2005. In paragraph
         25 following has been stated by this Court:
                    "25. When we come to Section 26 of the Act, the sweep of
       E         the Act is such that all the innovative reliefs available under
                 Sectio11s 18 to 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding
                 before a civil court, family court or criminal court affecting
                 the aggrieved person and the responde11t. The proceeding in
                  the civil court, family court or criminal court may well include
       F         female members of a family, and reliefs sought in those legal
                 proceedings would not be restricted by the definition of
                  "respondent" in the 2005 Act. Thus, an invidious
                  discrimination will result, depending upon whether the
                  aggrieved person chooses to institute proceedings under the
                  2005 Act or chooses to add to the reliefs available in either a
       G         pending proceeding or a later proceeding in a civil court,
                 family court or criminal court. It is clear that there is no
                  intelligible differentia between a proceeding initiated under
                  the 2005 Act and proceeding initiated in other fora under

      H
   VAISHALI ABHIMANYU JOSHI v. NANASAHEB GOPAL                                    507
             JOSHI (ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      other Acts, in which the selfsame reliefs grantable under this              A
      Act, which are restricted to an adult male person, are grantable
      by the other fora also against female members of a family. .. "
       36. 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                B
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      C
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       D
and purpose of Act, 2005.
       37. We, thus, are of considered opinion that the counter claim
filed by the appellant before Judge, Small Causes Court in Civil Suit
NO. 77of2013 was fully entertainable and courts below committed error
in refusing to consider such claim.                                               E
      38. We, however, make it clear that we have neither entered into
the merits of the claim of the appellant nor shall be understoodto have
expressed any opinion on the claim either way and the merits of the
claim has to be considered by the court in accordance with law.
       39. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High         F
Court dated 07.07.2016, judgment and order dated 05.11.2014 of 5•h
Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune and judgment dated
17.12.2015 of the District Judge, Pune are set aside. It is held that counter
claim filed by the appellant in Civil Suit No. 77of2013 is fully entertainable
by Judge, Small Causes Court and needs to be considered in accordance             G
with law.


Kalpana K. Tripathy                                             Appeal allowed.