Case Title: SATISH CHANDER AHUJA v. SNEHA AHUJA
In a significant verdict overturning the 2006 decision in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, the Supreme Court declared that a woman has the right to assert a claim to residency in a shared dwelling owned by relatives of the husband.
The requirements indicated in Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act are met and the abovementioned residence will become a shared household, the Court stated. “In the event, shared household belongs to any relative of the spouse with whom in a domestic relationship the lady has resided.” The definition of "shared household" in Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act cannot be interpreted to mean that it can only be the household of the joint family of which the husband is a member or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share.
The Supreme Court's panel of Justices SB Sinha and M. Katju rejected the argument in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra that a household where the aggrieved individual resides or has at any time resided in a domestic partnership is included in the concept of a shared household. The court ruled that the wife may only assert her right to live in a shared household, which is defined as either the home the husband owns or rents out or the home that belongs to the joint family to which the husband belongs. The court had also stated that no claim for alternative housing may be filed against the husband's in-laws or other family members.
The plaintiff relied on the Batra decision in this appeal before the Supreme Court against the High Court ruling to argue that the premises are not a shared home since the husband does not own any interest in the suit premises and the suit premises are not joint family property. The following were some of the points that the bench considered:-
Is it necessary to interpret the concept of "shared household" in Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to suggest that a shared household may only be a joint family or one in which the spouse of the victim has a share?
Does the 2006 decision in S.R. Batra and Anr. v. Taruna Batra, appropriately interprets Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and provides a sound legal framework?
The bench stated that the phrase "lives or at any time has lived in a domestic partnership" must be accorded its usual and intended meaning. In addition, the court noted that the usage of both "means" and "including" in Section 2(s) plainly demonstrates the legislative purpose that the definition is exhaustive and must embrace just those things that come within its scope and nothing else. The bench noticed:-
“From the above definition, the following is clear:- (i) it is not a requirement of law that the aggrieved person may either own the premises jointly or singly or by tenanting it jointly or singly; (ii) the household may belong to a joint family of which the respondent is a member irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in 53 the shared household; and (iii) the shared household may either be owned or tenanted by the respondent singly or jointly.”
“The living of woman in a household has to refer to a living which has some permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living in different places shall not make a shared household. The intention of the parties and the nature of living including the nature of the household have to be looked into to find out whether the parties intended to treat the premises as shared households or not. As noted above, Act 2005 was enacted to give a higher right in favour of women. The Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the woman who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family.”
The court also noted that the phrase "at any time has lived" was used to safeguard the woman from being denied the privilege of the right to live in a shared household on the grounds that she was either temporarily absent or barred from possession of the home on the day the application was made. The court ruled that the legislative objective was not for all of the homes where the wronged party had lived with her husband's family to become joint households. The bench disagreed with the Batra judgment's findings and stated that its concerns were unfounded. The judge stated:
“The observation of this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) that the definition of the shared household in Section 2(s) is not very happily worded and it has to be interpreted, which is sensible and does not lead to chaos in the society and also does not commend us. The definition of a shared household is a clear and exhaustive definition as observed by us. The object and purpose of the Act were to grant a right to the aggrieved person, a woman of residence in a shared household. The interpretation which is put by this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) is if 64 accepted shall clearly frustrate the object and purpose of the Act. We, thus, are of the opinion that the interpretation of the definition of a shared household as put by this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) is not the correct interpretation, and the said judgment does not lay down the correct law.”