PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 — Ss. 2(s), 17, 19, 26 — CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — O. XII R. 6, O. I R. 10 — RIGHT OF RESIDENCE — SHARED HOUSEHOLD — DAUGHTER-IN-LAW Shared household — Definition under S.2(s) DV Act — Use of expressions “means and includes” — Definition held exhaustive — Ownership of premises not determinative — Household where aggrieved woman lived in domestic relationship constitutes shared household even if owned exclusively by in-laws. (Paras 49–55, 63–64) Right of residence — S.17 DV Act — Statutory right independent of title or beneficial interest — Aggrieved woman cannot be evicted except in accordance with procedure established by law — Right enforceable even against in-laws who are “respondents”. (Paras 45, 63–64) Overruling of precedent — S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 — Restrictive interpretation of shared household disapproved — Held not to lay down correct law. (Paras 64, 70)

advocatemmmohan

PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 — Ss. 2(s), 17, 19, 26 —
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — O. XII R. 6, O. I R. 10 —
RIGHT OF RESIDENCE — SHARED HOUSEHOLD — DAUGHTER-IN-LAW

Shared household — Definition under S.2(s) DV Act — Use of expressions “means and includes” — Definition held exhaustive — Ownership of premises not determinative — Household where aggrieved woman lived in domestic relationship constitutes shared household even if owned exclusively by in-laws.
(Paras 49–55, 63–64)

Right of residence — S.17 DV Act — Statutory right independent of title or beneficial interest — Aggrieved woman cannot be evicted except in accordance with procedure established by law — Right enforceable even against in-laws who are “respondents”.
(Paras 45, 63–64)

Overruling of precedent — S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 — Restrictive interpretation of shared household disapproved — Held not to lay down correct law.
(Paras 64, 70)

Civil suit for possession — Order XII Rule 6 CPC — Admissions — Where defence of shared household under DV Act raised, suit cannot be decreed without adjudicating statutory right of residence — Summary decree unsustainable.
(Paras 15–16, 48)

Section 26 DV Act — Reliefs under DV Act available in civil proceedings — Civil Court bound to consider subsisting rights under DV Act while deciding suit for possession.
(Paras 15–16, 47–48)

Impleadment — Husband — Necessary party — In suits by in-laws seeking eviction of daughter-in-law — Direction to implead husband under O.I R.10 CPC upheld.
(Para 16)

Residence orders — S.19(1)(f) DV Act — Alternate accommodation — Civil Court must ensure protection of residence rights before directing eviction.
(Paras 15–16)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The appellant–father-in-law filed a civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction seeking eviction of his daughter-in-law from the first floor of his self-acquired property at New Friends Colony, Delhi. (Paras 6–7)

2. The respondent-daughter-in-law had been residing in the said premises since her marriage and had also initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act, obtaining interim protection against dispossession. (Paras 5, 9)

3. The Trial Court decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC based on alleged admissions regarding ownership. (Para 13)

4. The Delhi High Court set aside the decree and remanded the matter, holding that the right of residence under the DV Act could not be ignored and directing impleadment of the husband and consideration of alternate accommodation. (Paras 15–16)

5. The father-in-law appealed to the Supreme Court, relying heavily on S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra to contend that property exclusively owned by in-laws cannot be a shared household. (Paras 19–21)

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Nature and scope of “shared household” (S.2(s))
   The Court undertook an exhaustive statutory interpretation and held that:

   • The definition uses “means and includes”, making it exhaustive;

   • Ownership or title is irrelevant;

   • What is decisive is living in a domestic relationship with some degree of permanence. (Paras 49–55, 63)

2. Interpretation of “lives or at any stage has lived”
   The phrase is intended to prevent denial of protection merely because the woman is temporarily excluded or absent, not to create multiple shared households. (Paras 62–63)

3. Right of residence (Ss.17 & 19)
   The right is a statutory civil right, independent of proprietary interest, and enforceable against any respondent, including in-laws. Eviction can only be in accordance with law, and subject to safeguards such as alternate accommodation. (Paras 45, 63–64)

4. Overruling S.R. Batra
   The restrictive interpretation confining shared household to property owned by husband or joint family was held contrary to the text, object, and purpose of the DV Act. S.R. Batra was expressly held not to lay down correct law. (Para 64)

5. Effect on civil proceedings
   By virtue of Section 26 DV Act, civil courts must consider DV Act rights. A decree for possession cannot be passed mechanically under O. XII R. 6 CPC ignoring the pleaded right of residence. (Paras 15–16, 48)

6. Procedural safeguards
   Impleadment of the husband and consideration of alternate accommodation under S.19(1)(f) were held necessary to balance competing rights. (Para 16)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

The definition of “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is exhaustive and is not confined to property owned by or in which the husband has a proprietary interest; a household where the aggrieved woman has lived in a domestic relationship with a degree of permanence constitutes a shared household irrespective of ownership, and the statutory right of residence under Section 17 cannot be defeated by a civil decree for possession passed without adjudicating such right; the contrary view taken in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra does not lay down correct law.