K.T. SANKARAN, J.

1. The question involved in this Writ Appeal is whether a residence order under S. 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Domestic Violence Act') can be granted in respect of a house owned by the mother-in-law of the applicant. In S.R. Batra and Another Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169, the Supreme Court held thus:

"29. As regards S. 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a shared household would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or he house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband Amit Batra is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant No. 2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a "shared household"."

2. In S.R. Batra 's case, the Supreme Court considered the contention put forward by the wife that the definition of 'shared household' includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship, and held thus:

"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 wife can will insist in living in all these houses of her husband's relatives merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past. Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd."

3. The Supreme Court noticed in para, 30 of the judgment thus:

"30. No doubt, the definition of "shared household" in S. 2(s) of the Act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society."

4. In the present case, the learned Single Judge took the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case the decision in S.R. Batra and Another Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 can be distinguished. The learned Single Judge held that if a woman along with her husband had stayed in a particular house either belonging to her mother-in-law or father-in-law, after her marriage, and if the marriage was arranged by the parents and the bride was brought to the matrimonial home with the blessings of the parents of the husband, the parents of the husband cannot subsequently turn against the woman and take a stand that it was not her shared household. It was held that if the bride was brought to the house by the in-laws, and the bride and bridegroom stayed in that house, it would constitute "an implied authority and a right to the girl to reside in that house by treating it as the shared household". A distinction was made by the learned Single Judge where the bride was brought to the house of the parents of the husband without the junction of his parents, and held that in such cases the bride cannot put forward a claim that it was a shared household. A distinction was drawn by the learned Single