Broadened scope of term “Shared Household”

SEJAL MAKKAD | AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY CHHATTISGARH | 23rd May 2020

SR BATRA V TARUNA BATRA, (2007) 3 SCC 169

Facts: 

Taruna Batra was married to Amit Batra and started residing with him in second floor of a society in Ashok Vihar. Her mother in law and father in law used to reside in the same society but on ground floor. The flat in which Taruna used to reside with her husband was wholly owned by her mother in law SR Batra. 

After sometime, Amit filed for divorce in return of which Taruna lodged a FIR against her in laws. They were arrested but were given bail after some days and returned back. After this, Taruna left her husbands place and went to reside with her parents. After some days, she tried to return to the flat in which she resided with her husband but found that it was locked. She applied for permanent injunction for residing there as it was a “shared household” but before the grant of injunction she broke the lock and entered the house.

Issues: 

1. Was the property where she resided with her husband can be considered as a “shared household”?
2. Did Taruna had any right over that property?

Provisions: 

Section 2(s) of PWDVA: the section states that the women have a right in the shared household whether the household belongs to her husband or in laws. If the woman has resided in the household with her husband or in laws.

Judgement: 

Supreme Court narrowed the vision of Section 2(s) and held that a woman can claim for shared household only if her husband has paid for that property or pays the rent for the same. The section is unclear about somethings and simply a woman cannot claim for a shared household. In cases where the shared household creates a chaos and is not valid. 

The household where women has merely resided with her in laws cannot be claimed by her. In such a view, the woman might have resided in many places with her husband or households and this will be invalid.

Similarly, in the present case, the house where Taruna and Amit used to live was completely owned by her mother in law and her husband had no rights in it. Therefore, no injunction was granted to Taruna and appeal by SR Batra was upheld.

Significance: 

The case explained the meaning of the term “shared household” in a better way and broadened the scope of the Section too. After this case, further cases were decided by taking it as a precedent as it also stops women form claiming properties illegally by her in laws.