S.R. Batra And Anr vs Smt. Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006
I have considered the judgment cited by counsel for the
petitioner in context to the provisions of Section 2 (s) of the Act which
entitles a wife to resist eviction from shared household. A shared household,
as per the Statute is where the wife (aggrieved person) lives or at any stage
has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the
respondent and would also include a household whether owned or tenanted
either jointly by the aggrieved person and her in-laws or owned or tenanted
SANJAY GUPTA
2015.12.05 12:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
CRR 4675 of 2015 [5]
by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the
respondent (in laws) or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or
equity. The respondent wife after marriage had stayed in the house and had
acquired an interest and right to stay in the shared household. The judgment
of S.R. Batra's case (supra) does not deal with a situation where the
husband (respondent) is bent upon a mischief by camouflaging a situation by
taking different residence and wants to wash his hands of his liability
towards his wife by claiming that he is now unemployed and not having any
residence. Even the husband has not come forward with any plea in order to
enable his wife to enforce her legal rights under Section 17 (1) of the Act for
a shared household for having a domestic relationship. The father-in-law,
petitioner No.1 has certainly, a domestic relationship with the respondent.