For over a decade now there have been inconclusive arguments going on in the Courts over “shared household.” You could find these words in Section 17 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Till date, even Supreme Court could not arrive at a convincing conclusion on its literal legal meaning or otherwise the legality of such words in the DV Act. Before we delve into the subject, better know how those words are used in the Act;

Section 17 of the Act 2005: Right to reside in a shared household –

[1] Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

[2] The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law.

In fact, the provision is meant to intact the accommodation to the Wife she shared with her Husband. Which means Clause 1 relates to right of the Wife that she can exercise under this provision in the Magistrate Court.

And as far as [2] it is right of the Respondent Husband, who can challenge under this Clause and seek remedy on vacating the Wife from his premises.    

So the point is both Wife and her Husband have got the rights’ to possess and dispossess the shared house.

Supreme Court have decided in Satish Chandra Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja, “shared household” does not necessarily mean all those houses were the Husband and Wife resided together in their matrimonial journey but only the house where they last resided together i.e. before filing of a DV case by the Wife seeking implementation of Clause 17[1].

To that extent it is very clear that the subject matter “shared household” confines only to the last resided house but not all the houses [provided if they lived together after their marriage in more than one house and those houses are either Respondent’s owned ones or its’ his family property].

Does that mean the Wife can’t claim shared household in her in-laws property where she last lived with her Husband?

The Court differs on this issue, it says that the Wife has to prove that her Husband is one of the shareholder in such property. Otherwise, SC having relied on Civil Procedure Code and affirms that the Wife can’t claim shared household rights in a property belonging to the in-laws and the burden lies on her to prove that her Husband commands share in such property and if it is established then the Husband has to share his portion of his share in that property under such shared household notion.

And what about the Wife who went out of the matrimony long back and now claim shared household?

In such case the Wife can’t claim shared household but she can seek Residence Order from the Magistrate Court under Section 19[f];

“Directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same.”   

Supremacy of the Courts:

Does the Wife has right to seek stay on the shared household property from the Magistrate Court?

Yes, she is. She can claim such remedy under Section 19 of the DV Act. The Magistrate, under Section 23 of the DV Act, can even pass an interim order directing Respondent to stay away from dispossessing of her from the property. Here the Court does not go under merits [material facts of ownership of the property] of the case but on the maxim “preponderance of the evidence” – that on an admitted fact she being Wife of the Respondent.

Wherein, in such case, confusion prevail over who requires to prove – whether Wife or Husband if the matter confined to Magistrate Court? Supreme Court was not clear about this!   

In a situation – where the Respondent Husband approached a Civil Court to evict his Wife and simultaneously he contest the case of his Wife in DV and rebut her claim of his share in the property [in which she claims shared household].

Supreme Court ruling is that – till disposal of the Suit by the Civil Court, the Magistrate can’t dispose of the shared household remedy in favour of the Wife. And in turn Civil Court, till not arrive at the finality of the Suit, can’t evict the Wife from the demised property? Isn’t it a conundrum?