Hi,

I came across this judgment which deviates from the definition of Shared Household under the Domestic Violence Act which is well known for unhappy wordings.

On plain reading of definition of Shared Household u/s 2(s) it states that the aggrieved person lives or should have lived in the household.

But as per the judgment in Vandana vs. Mrs. Jayanthi Krishnamachari from Madras High Court it is observed as below:

20) If there is a relationship which has legal sanction, a woman in that relationship gets a RIGHT TO LIVE in the shared household. Therefore, she would be entitled to protection under Section 17 of the Act, even if she did not live in the shared household at the time of institution of the proceedings or had never lived in the shared household at any point of time in the past. Her right to protection under Section 17 of the Act, co-exists with her right to live in the shared household and it does not depend upon whether she had marked her physical presence in the shared household or not.

So my query is should a women be given right to residence in a ancestral flat in which her husband has share but she was not allowed to live in it by the parents or real brother of her husband?

I will appreciate comments from learned lawyers on this.

Thanks Swati