In S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, the petitioner (Taruna Batra) married the respondent (Amit Batra) on April 14, 2000. After the marriage, the petitioner shifted to her husband’s house with his parents, Shri S.R. Batra and Smt. Dhanwanti Batra. The said house is owned by mother of Amit Batra solely on her name. They all resided on the ground floor of the property situated at No. Block 135 Ashok Bihar Phase l Delhi. Later on, disturbances arose between the husband and wife. According to petitioner, her husband treated her with cruelty which made her shift their home to the 2nd floor of the said property with an intention to save their marriage. But on the contrary, the relation between them went into deep disturbances as result of which the husband filed a divorce petition. In return to the petition, the wife filed an FIR U/S 406, 498A, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code against her husband, father-in–law and mother-in-law in January, 2003. On the complaint filed by the petitioner, her husband and in-laws got arrested. Due to all of this, it became very difficult for the petitioner to reside in the Matrimonial house. And then she shifted to her parents’ house. Later, when she tried to return to her matrimonial house, she found that the main entrance was locked. Then she filed a petition seeking mandatory injunction to open the main entrance. On that petition, the respondents contended that they purchased a property in Ghaziabad and they are residing there only and now that is the matrimonial house of the petitioner.
The trial court decided the application on 04-03-2003. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to have the possession of the 2nd floor as her matrimonial house. The court further held that, both the parties shall not interfere with the possession of each other and they must share the common passage as they have right to the common passage jointly. The respondents on the decision of lower court filed an appeal to Senior Civil Judge. The Senior Civil Judge on September 17, 2004 held that the petitioner is currently not residing on the 2nd floor and there was nothing found on the property that belonged to her. Moreover, there is no supply of water and electricity in the property, which makes us believe that it is not her matrimonial home. Hence, the application filed by the petitioner needs to be dismissed. The court further held that if the petitioner wants, she can visit once or twice along with the police to see whether the premises are locked or not. Both the parties were aggrieved from the decision of the Senior Civil Judge, so they filed an appeal in the High Court. The High court of Delhi held that mere shifting of the residence from Ashok Vihar, Delhi to Ghaziabad does not make any change in the matrimonial house of the petitioner. The court further held that the petitioner is entitled to reside on the 2nd floor of the house in Delhi. The respondent on the decision of High Court filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court quashed the decision of High court of Delhi. The Supreme Court held that the house in question belongs to the Mother-in-law of the petitioner. Hence, she cannot claim the right to live in house. The share of the household within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides that women can claim right to residence if the property in which they reside belongs to their husband, or the property is rented by the husband, or property must be a joint family property. Here the property belonged to mother-in-law of the petitioner, therefore, she cannot claim the right to live in the said property. The court further discussed upon the legal obligations of the husband to provide residence to wife. The husband filing divorce petition cannot take away his obligations to provide residence to his wife. In this case there is no obligation of the respondent towards the petitioner for residing in the house of his mother that does not belong to him being her son.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgement of Tarun Batra in the recent judgment in Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja where it was held that a woman can claim right to reside in the houses owned by her husband as well his relatives. This means that, she can seek residence order with respect to property which belongs to her in-laws, if she and her husband lived there with some permanency after marriage.