S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra
Supreme Court of India · 15 December 2006 · 2 judges
Overruled in whole or in part by Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020), which says: “is not correct interpretation and the said judgment does not lay down the correct law”
A house owned exclusively by the mother-in-law is not a 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, and the daughter-in-law cannot claim a right to reside there; the High Court's order letting her stay was set aside.
Facts
Taruna Batra married Amit Batra, son of the appellants, and lived with him on the second floor of a house in Ashok Vihar, Delhi, owned by her mother-in-law (appellant no. 2). Amit Batra filed for divorce; she lodged an FIR against her husband and in-laws, and she moved to her parents' home because of the dispute. Finding the house locked, she filed a suit for mandatory injunction. The trial judge granted a temporary injunction in her favour. The Senior Civil Judge allowed the appeal, finding that she was not residing there, that her husband was not living in the property, and that she had no right in properties other than her husband's. The Delhi High Court, under Article 227, held the second floor to be her matrimonial home and allowed her to continue there. The in-laws appealed.
Questions before the Court
- Does a wife have a right to reside in a matrimonial home owned by her mother-in-law and not by her husband?
- Is a house owned exclusively by the husband's mother a 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
- Can a claim for alternative accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) be made against the husband's relatives?
What the Court held
- India has no law like the English Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967. The observation in B.R. Mehta v. Atma Devi about a right of occupation was only an expression of hope, not law; courts cannot legislate. Any such right could only be against the husband, not the parents-in-law.
- The Senior Civil Judge's finding that the wife was not residing in the premises was a finding of fact that could not be disturbed under Article 226 or 227. As she was not in possession, no question of dispossession arose.
- A 'shared household' under Sections 2(s) and 17(1) means a house belonging to or rented by the husband, or a house of a joint family of which the husband is a member. The mother-in-law's exclusive property is not a shared household.
- Reading Section 2(s) to cover every place where the couple once lived would let the wife insist on living in houses of all the husband's relatives, which would be absurd; an interpretation leading to absurdity must be avoided.
- A claim for alternative accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) lies only against the husband, not his in-laws or other relatives. The appeal was allowed and the Senior Civil Judge's order upheld.
Why it matters
The judgment gives a narrow reading of 'shared household' in Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, confining the wife's right of residence under Section 17 to property owned or rented by the husband or belonging to a joint family of which he is a member. It also confines claims for alternative accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) to the husband, and rejects any judicially created right to a matrimonial home.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion 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 the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member.”
“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.”
“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 any law can only be as against the husband and not against the father-in-law or mother-in-law.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
Case and bench
- Parties
- S.R. Batra and Anr. v. Smt. Taruna Batra
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 5837 of 2006
- Decided
- 15 December 2006
- Bench
- S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by Markandey Katju, J. No separate opinion appears in the file.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.