S.

Case Name Citation Court Observation

No.

1. S.R. Batra And Anr vs Appeal (Civil) Supreme Court Ms. Taruna Batra married Amit Batra on April 14, 2000, who is the son of
Smt. Taruna Batra 5837 of 2006; the two appellants Mr. and Mrs. S.R. Batra. After the marriage, Taruna and
(2007) 3 SCC her husband started residing together as husband and wife on the second
169 floor of B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, while S.R. Batra and his wife
resided separately on the ground floor of the same property. The entire
property was exclusively owned by Taruna Batras mother-in-law, Mrs. S.R.
Batra.

Para 13 Wife is entitled to claim a right in a shared household which

means a house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house
which belongs to joint family of which husband is a member
Para 29 The Supreme Court adverted their consideration to Section 17(1)
of the Act and opined that the wife would be entitled to claim a right of
residence in a shared household and a 'shared household' would only mean
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.

In the instant case, the Court held that the property in question neither
belonged to the husband nor was it taken on rent by him and neither was the
said property a joint family property of which the husband was a member.
The said property was exclusively owned by the mother-in-law and thus
could not be treated as a 'shared household'.
2. Sardar Malkiat Singh 168(2010) DLT Delhi High Court While the legal position is clear that the husband has a legal and moral
 vs. Kanwaljit Kaur 521, obligation to provide residence to his wife, and if the house where the wife
and Ors lived on being wedded, belongs to her husband, it would certainly be
treated as a shared household or a matrimonial home.,
3. Mr.Ishpal Singh Kahai Writ Petition Bombay High Court Para 3 The wife s essential case is that her husband is an inveterate and
vs Mrs. Ramanjeet No.576 of 2011 Civil appellate consummate alcoholic. She has lodged several complaints with Versova
Kahai jurisdiction Police Station. It is her case that her husband displays uncontrolled
aggression due to excessive consumption of alcohol and abuses her and her
children. The relief of injunction claimed by her is essentially upon the
domestic violence caused to her by her husband s behaviour which makes it
impossible for her to continue to reside in the matrimonial home with her
children if her husband continues to live there as before. She, therefore,
claims protection against domestic violence, a statutory right granted to
women under DV Act.
Para 10 That is, however, the most immaterial and even redundant
consideration. Human Rights of the person of a wife has little to do with her
ownership rights in property. It is, therefore, not material to consider in
whose name the matrimonial home ig stands. What has to be only
considered and appreciated in a case of domestic violence of a wife of an
alcoholic and abusive husband is the protection against such violence.
Para 35 the right to reside without having any title to the property contains
within itself the right to reside peaceably and to the exclusion of the
violator. Further since the Act puts the woman s personal rights above
proprietary interest, even if the Respondent who is the violator has title to
the property, he would be restrained by a Court
4. B.P. Achala Anand vs Appeal (civil) Bombay High Court Para 2 The wife has claimed and been granted the injunction against the
S. Appi Reddy & Anr 4250 of 2000 entry of the husband in the matrimonial home. She has made out a case that
her husband is a habitual alcoholic, unable to improve or withdraw from the
symptoms of alcohol constituting domestic violence and entitling her and
her children to the relief of protection from such onslaught in the
matrimonial home under the impugned residence order.
The entire case of the husband is based upon ownership rights. Incidentally,
in this case, the matrimonial home, in which the parties reside and for
which the wife has applied for injunction, temporary as well as permanent,
is in the name of the wife and her mother-in-law. That is, however, the most
immaterial and even redundant consideration. Human Rights of the person
of a wife has little to do with her ownership rights in property. It is,
therefore, not material to consider in whose name the matrimonial home ig
stands. What has to be only considered and appreciated in a case of
domestic violence of a wife of an alcoholic and abusive husband is the
protection against such violence.
Para 32 In our opinion, a deserted wife who has been or is entitled to be in
occupation of the matrimonial home is entitled to contest the suit for
eviction filed against her husband in his capacity as tenant
5. Navneet Arora Vs. 213 (2014) DLT Delhi High Court "Para 35 We may also note that the Act secures 'right of residence' for an
Surinder Kaur 611 'aggrieved person' in a 'shared household' which may belong to the 'joint
family' of which 'respondent' is a member, irrespective of whether the
'respondent' or the 'aggrieved person' has any right, title or interest in the
'shared household'."
"Para 119 Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, before Navneet
Arora married Gurpreet Singh, he was living as one family with his parents
Harpal Singh and Surinder Kaur. His brother Raman Pal Singh and his
sister Sherry were also residing in the same house. The kitchen was one.
The two sons and their father were joint in business and the kitchen used to
be run from the income of the joint business. They were all living on the
ground floor. Sherry got married and left the house. Navneet married
Gurpreet. Raman Pal married Neetu. The two daughter-in-laws joined the
company not only of their husbands but even of their in-laws in the same
joint family house i.e. the ground floor of B-44, Vishal Enclave, Rajouri
Garden, New Delhi. All lived in commensality. Navneet never left the joint
family house. She was residing in the house when her husband died. She
continued to reside there even till today. Under the circumstances her right
to residence in the suit property cannot be denied, and as regards issues of
title, we have already observed that the right of residence under the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the same would
have no bearing. She may enforce it in civil proceedings. But her right of
residence in the shared household cannot be negated."
6. Bharat Heavy Plates AIR 1985 AP Andhra Pradesh had categorically recognized such obligation cast upon the husband and
and Vessels Ltd., 207 High Court extensively discussed the equitable considerations accruing therefrom in
Visakhapatnam favour of the wife and granted her the right to reside in her 'matrimonial
home', though at the relevant point of time there was no such legislation
akin to the Act.