PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The first respondent, aged 69 years, is the father-in-law of the appellant who, is married to respondent No.2. Obviously respondent No.2 is the son of respondent No.1.

2. House bearing Municipal No.D-3, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, admittedly belongs to respondent No.1. In the suit filed by him claiming mandatory and prohibitory injunction and damages, respondent No.1 pleaded that after the appellant and the respondent No.2 were married on November 18, 2016 they resided on the barsati/first floor of his house, but claims the status of his son and daughter-in-law to be that of a licensee. In para 3 of the plaint he admitted that initially the couple were having meals in a shared kitchen with him and his other children, but pleaded that due to differences they started cooking meals separately in a kitchen on the first floor. Pleading that he had revoked the license and in spite thereof his son and his daughter-in-law continued to occupy the barsati/first floor of his house the suit was filed with prayers aforenoted.

3. As per the first respondent her husband and her father-in-law were in league. Her husband had shifted to the ground floor at the instigation of her father-in-law who wanted her to abort the foetus when it was found that she was carrying a female child. She resisted. She gave birth to a female child who is hated by her father-in-law and her sister-in-laws. She predicates a right to reside on the barsati/first floor on the strength of it being her ‘shared household’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

4. Vide impugned judgment dated April 23, 2015, recording that respondent No.1 gave up relief for damages, decree has been passed requiring appellant to vacate the barsati/first floor of property bearing No.D-3, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. The learned Single Judge has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2007) 3 SCC 169 S.R.Batra & Anr. Vs. Taruna Batra, two other judgments by learned Single Judges of this Court and a Division Bench judgment to hold that neither a son nor the wife of the son would have any claim over the self-acquired property of either the mother or the father of the son i.e. a daughter-in-law cannot claim right of residence in the properties owned by her mother-in-law or father-in-law.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as 213 (2014) DLT 614 (DB) Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur & Ors., had extensively explained the ratio of law declared in S.R.Batra’s case. Regretfully the impugned decree has missed the nuanced points concerning ‘shared household’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

6. In the decision reported as 213 (2014) Delhi Law Times 611 (DB) Navneet Arora v. Surender Kaur & Ors., relevant facts were that the husband of Surender Kaur: Harpal Singh Arora, was the owner of the ground floor of property bearing municipal No. B-44, Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Surender Kaur and Harpal Singh Arora had three children: Gurpreet Singh, Raman Pal Singh and Sherry. In due course of time, all three children got married. Gurpreet Singh married Navneet Arora. Raman Pal Singh married Neetu Singh. The two couple lived together with Surender Kaur and Harpal Singh Arora in the ground floor of B-44, Vishal Enclave; sharing a common kitchen. Upon the intestate death of Harpal Singh in the year 2008, his wife Surender Kaur and their three children inherited one fourth share each in the estate of Harpal Singh. On June 13, 2008 the children of Surender Kaur executed a relinquishment deed in her favor, whereby Surender Kaur became the sole owner of the property in question. However, the Gurpreet Singh and Raman Pal Singh along with their wives, continued to reside with their mother in the ground floor of the property.

7. After the death of Gurpreet Singh on May 20, 2012, the relationship between Surender Kaur and N