Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 2(s) - “shared household” – A shared household would have to be interpreted to include the residence where the appellant had been jointly residing with her husband - Merely because the ownership of the property has been subsequently transferred to her in-laws or that her estranged spouse is now residing separately, is no ground to deprive the appellant-wife of the protection that was envisaged under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005). 2020 SCeJ 2140 

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 2(s) - “shared household” - “means and includes”  - The definition of the expression “shared household” in Section 2(s) uses the familiar legislative formula of a “means and includes” definition - Where the definition of an expression in an enactment adopts a ‘means and includes’ stipulation, it is intended to be exhaustive - The ‘means’ part of the definition indicates what would normally fall within the ambit of the expression, while the ‘includes’ element gives it an extended meaning - Together they indicate that the legislature has provided for an exhaustive enumeration of what falls within the ambit of the definition – Words and Phrases - “means and includes” .  2020 SCeJ 2140 

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005),  Section 2(s) - “shared household” – “means and includes”  - Though neither the respondent, nor the aggrieved person in such case may have a right, title or interest in the shared household it would irrespective fall within the ambit of the definition  - The definition of ‘shared household’ in Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,  is exhaustive -  The definition is in two parts: in the means part of the definition the expression ‘shared household’ means (i) A household where the person aggrieved lives in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent or; (ii) At any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent. - This is followed by an inclusive element, so as to cover such a household (i) whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or (ii) owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title or equity -  This has also been given an inclusive or extended meaning, which extends to a household which may belong to the joint family of which a respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person have any right, title or interest in the shared household -  The last part of the inclusive definition is intended to extend the meaning of a shared household to a situation where the household in fact belongs to a joint family, of which the respondent is a member -  The legislature has made it clear that though neither the respondent, nor the aggrieved person in such case may have a right, title or interest in the shared household it would irrespective fall within the ambit of the definition.  2020 SCeJ 2140 

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005),  Section 36, and Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 3 -   Principles of statutory interpretation dictate that in the event of two special acts containing non obstante clauses, the later law shall typically prevail - The Senior Citizen’s Act 2007 contains a non obstante clause – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, , Section 36 stipulates that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force - This is intended to ensure that the remedies provided under the enactment are in addition to other remedies and do not displace them -   The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 is undoubtedly a later Act and Section 3 stipulates that its provisions will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment - However, in the event of a conflict between special acts, the dominant purpose of both statutes would have to be analyzed to ascertain which one should prevail over the other -  The primary effort of the interpreter must be to harmonize, not excise - However, the provisions of Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 giving it overriding force and effect, would not by themselves be conclusive of an intent to deprive a woman who claims a right in a shared household, as under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)  - Principles of statutory interpretation - Section 36 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, albeit not in the nature of a non-obstante clause, has to be construed harmoniously with the non obstante clause in Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007 that operates in a separate field.  Bank of India vs. Ketan Parekh, (2008) 8 SCC 148, Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC 416, relied. 2020 SCeJ 2140