Court Cannot Grant Relief of Alternative Accommodation Outside Shared Household If Not Prayed For Under DV Act

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error by granting relief (alternative accommodation outside the shared household) that was never prayed for by the Petitioner.

The court held

The court held that the Trial Court erred by granting relief that was never requested

It also directed

The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the orders dated 08.06.2023 and 04.07.2023. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court to re-consider the application on its merits after hearing both sides, specifically to determine the availability of accommodation within the shared household, without being prejudiced by the previous findings

01Facts

The Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. During the proceedings, she moved an application to recall a previous repair order and requested respondent no. 1 to provide "alternative accommodation of similar size and amenities in the same shared household"

pp. 1-2

The Petitioner alleged her current portion was uninhabitable while another portion in the same building was vacant

p. 2

The Respondent denied the existence of any vacant portion

p. 2

The Trial Court, without determining if a vacant portion existed within the shared household, directed the Respondent to provide accommodation outside the shared household or pay ₹10,000 rent

p. 3

The Sessions Court dismissed the Petitioner’s appeal on 04.07.2023

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error by granting relief (alternative accommodation outside the shared household) that was never prayed for by the Petitioner.

p. 3 · ¶ 9

ii.2. Whether the impugned orders effectively forced the Petitioner to vacate her shared household without due consideration of her specific prayer for relocation within the same premises.

pp. 3-4 · ¶ 12-13

03Law Applied

The court's reasoning was based on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, specifically the right to residence under Section 19

p. 2

Ajay Kumar Jain v. Baljeet Kaur Jain (2009), which establishes that while a wife cannot insist on a particular property if suitable alternative remains available, the court must balance the husband's right to deal with property against the wife's right against homelessness

p. 3

Fundamental to the decision was the procedural principle that a court cannot grant relief beyond the scope of the prayers sought in the application

pp. 3-4

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12 Section 29

04Reasoning

The High Court found that the Trial Court's decision suffered from an "apparent illegality" as it went beyond the scope of the application

p. 4 · ¶ 15

The court observed that the Petitioner’s specific prayer was restricted to an "alternate accommodation within the shared household"

p. 3 · ¶ 11

By directing the Petitioner to stay outside the shared household, the Trial Court indirectly compelled her to leave her matrimonial home—a relief she never sought and to which she expressly objected

p. 4 · ¶ 12

The High Court noted that if no alternative accommodation existed within the shared household, the Trial Court should have addressed that factual dispute or dismissed the application, rather than creating a new arrangement that shifted her residence entirely

p. 4 · ¶ 12-13