Shared household under domestic violence law does not include in-laws' exclusive property merely because spouses previously lived there.

A wife's residence right under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 extends only to a shared household, and not to the exclusive property of in-laws merely because the spouses once lived there. The Supreme Court noted that Section 2(s) cannot be read so broadly as to cover every house previously occupied by the couple, especially where the husband neither owned nor rented the premises and it was not joint family property. A claim for alternative accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) lies against the husband, not the in-laws. On these facts, the house was not a shared household and no enforceable right of residence or alternate accommodation against the in-laws was available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the wife could claim a right of residence in the mother-in-law's exclusive property as a matrimonial home or shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and whether she could seek alternative accommodation against the in-laws.

Analysis: The right recognised by Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a right of residence in a shared household. The expression "shared household" in Section 2(s) cannot be read to mean every house in which the spouses had stayed at any time in the past, for such an interpretation would extend the right to numerous houses of relatives and lead to an unworkable and absurd result. On the facts found, the property belonged exclusively to the mother-in-law, was neither owned nor taken on rent by the husband, and was not joint family property of which the husband was a member. The claim for alternate accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) could lie only against the husband and not against his in-laws. The finding that the wife was not in possession of the property also negatived any claim to injunction against dispossession, and that factual finding was not open to interference in supervisory jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The house in question was not a shared household, and the wife had no enforceable right to reside there or claim alternate accommodation against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the High Court order was set aside, with the injunction application remaining dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A "shared household" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is limited to a dwelling of the or joint family and does not extend to the exclusive property of in-laws merely because the spouses once resided there.

---