DEFINITION OF “SHARED HOUSEHOLD” UNDER SECTION 2 (s) OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005

“Shared household” has been defined under Section 2(s) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as under:

(s) “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the share household.

The concept of shared household is important under the act as aggrieved person has been given right to reside in shared household, irrespective of whether she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

As per this clause, shared household is a household where aggrieved person lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with Respondent. Shared household includes such households owned and tenanted jointly by aggrieved person and the respondent; or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which aggrieved person and respondent both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity. Shared household also includes households which may belong to 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.

It is pertinent to note that even such household, where an aggrieved person has lived singly, is covered in the definitions of shared household. The critical test is that such women should be in domestic relationship with the respondent.

The most distinguishing feature of the definition of shared household is the fact that right, title or interest of the aggrieved person over the shared household is immaterial for determination whether a household is shared household. Only two factors are relevant for determination whether a household is shared household. Firstly, there should exist domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent. Secondly, aggrieved person lives or at any stage has lived singly or jointly in the household.

It has been held by the Supreme Court in S. R. Batra & ANR vs. Smt. Taruna Batra; (2007) 3 SCC 169 that an aggrieved person cannot claim every household to be shared household wherein she has lived with the respondent. Only those household can be covered under the definitions of shared household, where she has lived with husband or which is a joint family property. The Hon’ble Court has observed as under:

20. 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 grand parents, 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 well insist in living in the 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.

It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted.

The Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja (Civil Appeal 2483 of 2020) has held that interpretation of shared household as put in S. R. Batra is not correct interpretation. The Court held that share household can not be 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. The respondent in a proceeding under the Act can be any relative of the husband. In event, the shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are satisfied and the said house will become a shared household. Relevant para is as under:

63. The words “lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship” have to be given its normal and purposeful meaning. The living of woman in a household has to refer to a living which has some permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared household. The intention of the parties and the nature of living including the nature of household have to be looked into to find out as to whether the parties intended to treat the premises as shared household or not. As noted above, Act 2005 was enacted to give a higher right in favour of woman. The Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the woman who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. The Act has to be interpreted in a manner to effectuate the very purpose and object of the 62 Act. Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of Act, 2005 grants an entitlement in favour of the woman of the right of residence under the shared household irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same or not.

64. In paragraph 29 of the judgment, this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) held that 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 the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The definition of shared household as noticed in Section 2(s) does not indicate that a shared household shall be one which belongs to or taken on rent by the husband. We have noticed the definition of “respondent” under the Act. The respondent in a proceeding under Domestic Violence Act can be any relative of the husband. In event, the shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are satisfied and the said house will become a shared household. We are of the view that this court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) although noticed the definition of shared household as given in Section 2(s) but did not advert to different parts of the definition which makes it clear that for a shared household there is no such requirement that the house may be owned singly or jointly by the husband or taken on rent by the husband. The observation of this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) that definition of shared household in Section 2(s) is not very happily worded and it has to be interpreted, which is sensible and does not lead to chaos in the society also does not commend us. The definition of shared household is clear and exhaustive definition as observed by us. The object and purpose of the Act was to grant a right to aggrieved person, a woman of residence in shared household. The interpretation which is put by this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) if accepted shall clearly frustrate the object and purpose of the Act. We, thus, are of the opinion that the interpretation of definition of shared household as put by this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) is not correct interpretation and the said judgment does not lay down the correct law.

JOINT FAMILY & SHARED HOUSEHOLD

Shared household includes a household belonging to joint family of which respondent is a member. Joint family has not been defined under the Act.

The Supreme Court in Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi (2022) 8 SCC 90 observed that the D.V. Act is a piece of Civil Code which is applicable to every woman in India irrespective of her religious affiliation and/or social background for a more effective protection of her rights guaranteed under the Constitution and in order to protect women victims of domestic violence occurring in domestic relationship. Therefore the expression “joint family” cannot mean as understood in Hindu Law. Thus, the expression “family members living together as a joint family” means the members living jointly as family In such an interpretation, even a girl child/children whos is/are cared for as foster children also have a right to live in a shared household and are conferred with the right under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the D.V. Act. When such a girl child or woman becomes an aggrieved person, the protection of sub-section (2) of the Section 17 comes into play.

Delhi High Court in Preeti Satija vs. Raj Kumari and Ors.; 207(2014)DLT78 has observed that joint status of family referred under the Act is in generic sense and equally applicable to all communities.

21. Likewise, the interpretation preferred by some learned single judges that where the husband has some rights (as a member of the HUF, i.e. the Hindu Undivided Family) and if those premises were the shared household, the wife can enforce her right to residence, also constitutes an internally incoherent and restrictive interpretation of the Act. As explained in Evneet Singh, such a construction is contrary to Parliamentary intention that the law is a non-sectarian one. Indeed, the “joint” status of a family referred to under Section 2(s) is in a generic sense. To equate it with a HUF would result in unintended benefits to one set of respondents, who are Hindus. Speaking generically, “joint family” refers to a group of people, related either by blood or marriage, residing in the same house. Instances of that can be found in almost all parts of India. The general practice in India is that the son and his wife reside in the house of the (husband’s) parents after marriage, though the legal obligation to maintain a child ceases as soon as she or he attains majority, the jural relationship between the parents and the child continues. The concept of a “joint family” in law is peculiar to Hindu law. No concept of a “joint family” similar to that of an HUF can be found in Muslim law, Christian law or any other personal law. Therefore, a restrictive interpretation of “joint family” by equating it to a HUF would result in implicit discrimination, because women living in a shared household belonging to an HUF (and therefore, Hindus) would have more security, by reason of their professing the Hindu faith than others who are not Hindus. In fact, even among Hindus, women who are married into or live in HUFs, as compared with those living with husbands, whose parents own the property – on an application of Batra – would have the protection of the Act, while the latter would not. This inequity was addressed by the Parliament which stated in no uncertain terms that irrespective of title of the “Respondent” to the “shared household”, a protection order can be made under Section 19(1)(a).

Delhi High Court in Navneet Arora vs. Surender Kaur; 213 ( 2014 ) DLT 611 has also taken a view that joint family is different than hindu undivided family.

76. Thus, it is unequivocally evinced from a perusal of the definitions enacted by various state legislatures in different enactments, that the term ‘Joint Family’ has a wider import than ‘Hindu Undivided Family’; which stands subsumed therein

77. The Gujarat High Court in its decision reported as 2012 Cri. L.J. 1187 Pritiben Jiteshbhai Upadhyay v. Jiteshbhai Virendrabhai Upadhyay & Ors., while dealing with a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, noticed the fact that the term ‘Joint Family’ was not defined under the Act and in order to assign a meaning to the same the Court cited with approval the definition comprised in Encyclopedia Britannica 2008. The same may be reproduced herein below:

“Joint family.-family in which members of a unilineal descent group (a group in which descent through either the female or the male line is emphasized) live together with their spouses and offspring in one homestead and under the authority of one of the members. The joint family is an extension of the nuclear family (parents and dependent children), and it typically grows when children of one sex do not leave their parents‘ home at marriage but bring their spouses to live with them. Thus, a patrilineal joint family might consist of an older man and his wife, his sons and unmarried daughters, his sons’ wives and children, and so forth. For a man in the middle generation, belonging to a joint family means joining his conjugal family to his family of orientation (i.e., into which he was born).”

__________________________________________