SC expounds Wife is entitled to claim the right of residence which belongs to relatives of Husband also[Read Judgment]

On 15^th Oct 2020, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja comprising of 3 Judge Bench Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, and Justice M.R. Shah overruled its judgment in the case of S.R. Batra and Anr. v. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169 stating that the judgment of this Court in S.R. Batra and Anr. Vs. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 has not correctly interpreted the provision of Section 2(s) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and does not lay down the correct law.

S.R. BATRA V. TARUNA BATRA (2007) 3 SCC 169

In the case of  S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) in paragraphs 24, 25, and 26 stated that  “while considering the expression “person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived”. This Court observed in paragraph 26 that if the interpretation canvassed by learned counsel for the respondent is accepted that the house of the husband’s relative where respondent resided shall become a shared household, shall lead to chaos and would be absurd. The expression “at any stage has lived” occurs in Section 2(s) after the words “where the person aggrieved lives”. The use of the expression “at any stage has lived” immediately afterwords “person aggrieved lives” has been used for object different to what has been apprehended by this Court in paragraph 26. The expression “at any stage has lived” has been used to protect the women from denying the 59 benefits of the right to live in a shared household on the ground that on the date when the application is filed, she was excluded from the possession of the house or temporarily absent. The use of the expression “at any stage has lived” is for the above purpose and not with the object that wherever the aggrieved person has lived with the relatives of husband, all such houses shall become shared household, which is not the legislative intent. The shared household is contemplated to be the household, which is a dwelling place of the aggrieved person in the present time. When we look into the different kinds of orders or reliefs, which can be granted on an application filed by the aggrieved person, all orders contemplate providing protection to the women in reference to the premises in which aggrieved person is or was in possession.”

Supreme Court

Two important questions arise for determination before the Supreme Court in the present appeal:-

1. Whether the definition of shared household under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has to be read to mean that shared household can only be that household which is household of a joint family or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share?
2. Whether the judgment of this Court in S.R. Batra and Anr. Vs. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 has not correctly interpreted the provision of Section 2(s) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and does not lay down a correct law?

Supreme Court in its findings stated that the definition of shared household given in Section 2(s) cannot be read to mean that shared household can only be that household which is household of the joint family of which husband is a member or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share and The judgment of this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) has not correctly interpreted Section 2(s) of Act, 2005 and the judgment does not lay down correct law.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Picture Source :