The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a woman-centric legislation enacted under the tutelage of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India. The title of the Act ipso facto indicates that the legislation aims in providing protection to women facing abuse under domestic relationships.
Section 2(s) of the Act states that "shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the 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 the shared household".
The primary focus of this blog is to understand the interpretation of the expression "lives or at any stage has lived" occuring in the foregoing provision.
A plain reading of the expression suggests that any aggrieved person who (1) lives, or (2) has lived at any stage, in the premises in question can raise a claim of granting shared household. However, the extent to which the ambit of the expression can be extended has to be understood in clarity.
A two-judge bench of the hon'ble Supreme Court in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra; (2007) 3 SCC 169 had held that the expression "shared household" only meant the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The reason being if a different interpretation is accepted then every property where the husband and wife had lived in the past would become a shared household and as such dozens of places would be included under the expression of "shared household"
Thereafter, a three-judge bench of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja; (2021) 1 SCC 414, overruled the 2007 judgment and provided a detailed explanation to the expression "shared household". The hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
I. Overruling its previous decision in Taruna Batra, the bench stated that "shared household" may even be premises belonging to any relative of the husband with whom the woman lives in a domestic relationship. However, such living must have some permanency and mere fleeting or casual living at different places would not constitute and qualify as a shared household.
II. The expression "at any stage has lived" refers to living of the aggrieved person in a household at the time of filing of application under Section 12 or passing of Order under Section 19 or her living in recent past prior to her exclusion from possession or on her remaining temporarily absent. However, it would not mean that wherever the aggrieved person lived with the relatives of the husband, all such houses shall become a shared household.
Informative!