Shared household as per Domestic violence Act does not mean property of third party that is employer
If the interpretation canvassed on behalf of the daughter-in-law is accepted, all these houses will be sharing households and the wife can well insist in living in all such houses because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past. Such a view, as observed by the Supreme Court in that case, would lead to chaos and would be absurd. If the premises, as in the present case, is held to be a shared house, that will undoubtedly lead to chaos and no company would ever be able to provide residential accommodation to its employees and if they do, they would not be able to take back possession of such houses. Therefore, in my opinion, the provisions of the Act of 2005 has and can have no application to a third party, such as defendant
Bombay High Court
Shammi Nagpal vs Sudhir Nagpal, Director Of Hotel ... on 6 May, 2008
Bench: D Bhosale
