A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court resolved the contentious question concerning the definition of 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The Court considered whether a daughter-in-law can claim residence rights in premises owned exclusively by her father-in-law or mother-in-law.

In doing so, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier restrictive judgment in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169, which had limited shared household rights only to property belonging to or rented by the husband or joint family.

Expansive Interpretation of Section 2(s) and Section 17

The Court held that the definition of 'shared household' under Section 2(s) is not limited to properties where the husband has a proprietary share. It extends to any house where the aggrieved woman lives or lived at any stage in a domestic relationship with the respondent.

Under Section 17(1), every woman in a domestic relationship has the right to reside in the shared household, and she cannot be evicted or excluded therefrom save in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Balancing Senior Citizens' Rights with Women's Protection

The Supreme Court recognized that rights under the DV Act must be harmonized with rights of senior parents under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Civil courts entertaining eviction suits by in-laws must consider the woman's domestic violence claims and determine whether alternative accommodation must be provided under Section 19.

Let’s Discuss Your Legal Matter

For consultations and legal queries, feel free to get in touch.

Contact Now