The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of residence in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is limited to 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.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 26.02.2018 whereby the application of the petitioner seeking residence in the matrimonial home/shared household has been rejected.

2. The petitioner had claimed the right of residence in House No. 51, Anand Lok, New Delhi on the ground that the petitioner had been granted rental for accommodation under Section 19(f) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, however, the respondent no. 1 had not paid the same. It is contended that she was suffering from trauma and had no accommodation to live in. As per the petitioner, the petitioner sought resident in the house which was the matrimonial house and was a joint family property. She has been residing in one bedroom with attached bathroom on the ground floor in the said property after her marriage.

3. As per the petitioner, she was married to respondent no. 1 on 31.08.2012, resided with him till 21.04.2013 at 51, Anand Lok, New Delhi. Thereafter they went to Australia where they resided together till 29.06.2015. The petitioner alleges that her husband had, subsequently, taken her to Australia for the purpose of abandoning her. Further it is contended that on 29.06.2015 the petitioner had been abandoned by her husband.

4. The petition is opposed by respondent no. 2 and 3 contending that the subject property is the self-acquired property of respondent no. 2 and the property was allotted to respondent no. 2 by way of a perpetual sub-lease dated 22.01.1971 and said property sole and absolutely belongs to respondent no. 2 and the petitioner could not claim right of residence in the same.

5. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment has held that the property is the self–acquired property of the father-in-law of the petitioner. Though immediately after marriage the petitioner lived with her husband, in the said property, however, she and her husband last resided together in Australia till the date of their separation. The property was neither taken on rent by her husband nor belongs to the joint family to which her husband was a member.

6. The trial court has held that the claim for alternative accommodation in terms of Section 19 (f) of the Act could only be made against the husband and not against in-laws or relatives of the husband.

7. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner contends that prior to moving to Australia she was living in house number 51, Anand Lok, New Delhi along with her husband and this is a matrimonial home and thus qualifies as a shared household.

8. To be entitled to a right of residence in a house, the wife has to show that the same is a shared household in which her husband has a right to reside. It is not sufficient to merely show that the house in which the wife claims residence is a shared household, in addition she has to show that her husband has a right in the property.

9. In S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 the Supreme Court of India dealing with a claim of residence by the wife in the house owned by the mother in law held:

“24. Learned counsel for the respondent Smt Taruna Batra stated that the definition of shared household includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship. He contended that since admittedly the respondent had lived in the property in question in the past, hence the said property is her shared household.

25. We cannot agree with this submission.

26. If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband’s father, husband’s paternal grandparents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, all these houses of the husband’s relatives will be shared households and the