Supreme Court on subject woman’s right to reside in shared household held that:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court on October 15, 2020 held that in case of Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja in Civil Appeal No. 2483/2020 the definition of shared household  given in Section 2(s) cannot be read to mean that shared household can only be that household which is household of joint family of which husband is a member or in which husband of aggrieved person has a share 

2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the judgment of the  same Court in case of S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (Supra) has not correctly interpreted Section 2(s) of Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act” for sake of brevity) and has categorically held that the said judgment did not lay a correct law.

Therefore in the said case of Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja the Hon’ble Apex Court determined a question of law arising in the said appeal that whether the definition a shared household under Section 2 (s) of the DV Act has to be read to mean that the said household can only be that household which is household of joint family or in which husband of aggrieved person has a share?

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that shared household refer to in section 2(s) is shared household of aggrieved person where she was living at that time when the application was filed or in the recent past has been excluded from the use or she is temporarily absent. The Hon’ble Court has categorically  observed that the right to residence under section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law. While granting relief in application under section 12 of DV Act, 2005 or in any Civil proceedings, the court has to balance the right of both the parties.