S.R. BATRA AND ANR. versus SMT. TAR UNA BATRA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 1206 · Decided: 15-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
'-"" 
A 
S.R. BATRA AND ANR. 
v. 
SMT. TAR UNA BATRA 
DECEMBER 15, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Protection to Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 
ss. 2(s), 17(1), 19(/)(/)-"Shared household"-Meaning of-Divorce 
c petition and criminal proceedings pending between husband and wife-Wife 
claiming right to reside in the house owned by her mother-in-law-Held, the 
right which may be available against the husband cannot be claimed against 
in-laws-The premises belonged to mother-in-law and not to husband and 
as such wife ca1111ot claim any right to live therein - Interpretation of 
D Statutes-Presumption against absurdity. 
Respondent herein, after her marriage, lived for sometime with her 
husband in the premises in question, the house owned by her mother-in-law, 
appellant no. 2. Dispute arose between the couple and they started living 
separately- the respondent with her parents, and her husband also shifted 
E to his own flat. The husband filed a divorce petition against the respondent, 
and she in turn filed a criminal case and got arrested her mother-in-law and 
other family members. Thereafter she filed a suit for mandatory injunction 
to enable her to enter the said house of her mother-in-law. It was stated by 
the appellants that later she forcibly broke open the locks of the said house. 
(_ 
F 
The trial court granted temporary injunction restraining the appellants from 
interfering with possession of the respondent. But the appellate court held 
that respondent no. I was not residing in the premises in question nor her 
husband was living therein and as such the respondent had no right to the 
property other than that of her husband. However, the High Court allowed 
the writ petition filed by respondent no. I under Article 227 of the Constitution 
G holding that the premises in question was the matrimonial home of the 
respondent. Aggrieved, the in-laws of the respondent no. I filed the appeal. 
It was contended for the respondent that definition of shared household 
includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had 
~·-:-
lived in a domestic relationship. It was submitted that since the respondent 
H 
1206 
~; 
; 
S. R. BATRA v. T ARUNA BATRA 
1207 
had lived in the property in question in the past, the said property is her shared A 
household. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is no such law in India, like the British Matrimonial 
Homes Act, 1967, and in any case the rights which may be available under B 
any law can only be as against the husband and not against the father-in-law 
or mother-in-law. In the instant case, the house in question belongs to the 
mother-in-law of the respondent and not to her husband. Hence, she cannot 
claim any right to live in the said house. (1210-E) 
B.R. Mehta v. Atma Devi and Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 183, referred to. 
C 
1.2. It may be noticed that the finding of the trial court that in fact the 
respondent was not residing in the premises in question is a finding of fact 
which cannot be interfered with either under Article 226 or 227 of the 
Constitution. Hence, she cannot claim any injunction restraining the D 
appellants from dispossessing her from the property in question for the simple 
reason that she was not in possession at all of the said property and hence 
the question of dispossession does not arise. Besides, the house in question. 
cannot be said to be a 'shared household' within the meaning of Section 2(s) 
oftbe Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Further, the 
claim for alternative accommodation as envisaged by s.19(1)(t) of the Act can E 
only be made against husband and not against the husband's parents or other 
relatives. (1210-H; 1211-A, B; 1213-B( 
2.2. As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, 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 F 
the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. 
The property in question, in the instant case, neither belongs to the husband 
nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the 
husband is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant no. 2, the mother-
in-law. Hence it cannot be called a 'shared household'. (1213-C( 
3. It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should 
not be accepted. No doubt, tlie definition of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.