The Apex Court through the judgment titled as Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja has overruled its previous judgment S.R Batra and Ors. Vs. Taruna Batra clearly stating that that a wife is also entitled to claim a right to reside in a shared household belonging to relatives of the husband.
As per DV Act, a woman has a right of accommodation in ‘shared household’ and shared household has been defined under section 2(s) of the act. However, what is a ‘shared household’ had been a cause of huge legal controversy.
The question that arises is ‘shared household’ only when the property belongs exclusively to husband or one in which he has a share or even those properties which belong to in-laws but where the daughter in law has stayed would also qualify as ‘shared household’ and can a right to residence be sustained in that property?
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court through the present judgment has solved this dilemma.

Facts of the case:

  1. Satish Chand Ahuja by deed purchased a property in New Friends Colony, New Delhi. The son of Satish Chand Ahuja, Raveen Ahuja married Sneha Ahuja on 04.03.1995. After marriage Sneha started living on the first floor of this house along with her husband. There was a marital conflict between Raveen and Sneha in July, 2014 after which Raveen moved out of the first floor and started staying on the ground floor.
  2. Raveen filed a Divorce Petition on 28.11.2014 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty against, Sneha Ahuja the proceedings of which are still pending.
  3. Sneha Ahuja, after filing of the Divorce Petition, filed an application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 impleading Raveen Ahuja, Shri Satish Ahuja, and Dr. Prem Kanta Ahuja(mother- in-law of Sneha Ahuja). In the complaint Sneha alleged that she has been subjected to severe emotional and mental abuse by her husband and in-laws.
  4. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed passed an interim order on 26.11.2016 to the following effect that Sneha Ahujashall not alienate the alleged shared household nor the in-laws would dispossess her or her children from the same without Orders of a Competent Court and that the directions would continue till the next date.
  5. Satish Chand Ahuja filed a suit impleading Sneha as sole-defendant and claimed that he and his wife have become victim of domestic violence on the part of Sneha Ahuja and pleaded that the status of occupation of Sneha Ahuja is of daughter-in-law and he who is the father-in-law has no obligation to maintain Sneha during the lifetime of her husband. He prayed for decree for mandatory injunction against the Sneha Ahuja to remove herself and her belonging from the first floor of the property and a decree of permanent injunction in favour of Satish Chand Ahuja and against Sneha Ahuja thereby restraining her from creating interference or obstruction in the suit property and restraining her from causing interference in the peaceful occupation of Satish Chand Ahuja on the ground floor of the property.
  6. Sneha Ahuja filed a reply stating that house property was acquired by Mr. Ahuja through joint family income and it is not his self- acquired property.
  7. On this, Satish Chander Ahuja contested that the property is not a shared household as his son neither has any share in the suit premises nor it is a joint family property. In support of his submission, he relied on the judgment of S.R. Batra and Ors. Vs. Taruna Batra.

In the judgment of SR Batra v. Taruna Batra, a two judge-bench held that the wife is entitled only to claim a right under Section 17(1) to residence in a shared household and a shared household would only mean the house which belongs to or is taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member and it did not include self-acquired property of any family member.
Interpretation of the definition of “shared household” under Section 2(s) of Act, 2005 was questionable even after SR Batra v. Taruna Batra judgment was passed as women were at a risk of being thrown out of the marital homes. So, there were some important issues for the court to adjudicate upon.
The Supreme Court in this case of Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja has given a progressive judgment stating that the definition of “shared household” provided under Section 2 (s) of DV Act cannot be interpreted to mean only that household which is a joint family property or a property in which husband of the aggrieved has a share but it includes the property belonging to the relatives of the husband.
The court held that the intent of the DV Act, would be defeated if the definition of section 2(s) was accepted as defined in SR Batra v. Taruna Batra.