Woman can seek residence in households shared by husband's relatives: SC

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that a woman can seek the right to residence under the Domestic Violence Act at a house, even owned by husband's relatives, where she lived for some time due to her relationship.

A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and M R Shah interpreted the definition of the shared household to give wider meaning to it in the 2005 law for a woman who "resigns her fate to the never-ending cycle of enduring violence and discrimination as a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother, a partner or a single woman in her lifetime."

Observing that the 2005 law was a "milestone for the protection of women" covering even those outside the marriage, the court said, "The definition of shared household given in Section 2(s) cannot be read to mean that it can only be that household which is of the joint family of which husband is a member or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share."

The top court declared that a previous decision in 'S R Batra and Another Vs Taruna Batra' case, (2007) did not lay down the correct law.

The two-judge bench had then held that the wife is entitled only to claim a right to residence in a shared household, which would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belonged to the joint family of which the husband is a member.

The court said the progress of any society depends on its ability to protect and promote the rights of its women. Guaranteeing equal rights and privileges to women by the Constitution had marked the step towards the transformation of the status of the women in this country," it said.

Going through the provisions of 2005 law, the bench said the statute granted entitlement in favour of the woman of the right of residence under the shared household irrespective of her having any legal interest in the property or not.

In a judgement on a petition filed by Satish Chander Ahuja, the court said the 2005 law was passed to give a higher right in favour of the woman.

"We, thus, are of the considered opinion that shared household is where the aggrieved woman was living at the time when the application was filed or in the recent past had been excluded from the use or she is temporarily absent," the bench said.