Shared household includes joint family home

The term "shared household" in the DV Act has been interpreted ad infinitum by different Courts. However, the seminal case on this subject I think is the Supreme Court's judgement in Batra vs. Batra.  Read that in detail.   I think that there are two DIFFERENT issues involved in your query. One involves the definition of the term SHARED HOUSEHOLD to see if the DV Act is applicable.  The other is the RIGHT TO RESIDENCE which is a totally independent right and issue after it is found that the DV Act is applicable.  Right to Residence, broadly speaking, is the duty of the husband to provide you a residence which may or may not be a Shared Household. I  doubt that if a residential property is NOT owned by the husband singly or jointly with you, you will qualify to get a right to live SPECIFICALLY in it. However, I cannot give you a definite answer because the facts of your case are also important. Do you have brother in laws? How big is the joint family? What percentage right does your husband have in this residential property? And many such facts should be known for any advocate to give you any definite answer. That said, I am NOT an advocate.

Thanks Mr. Gowda....I have filed my application and the hearings of my case are going on. 

Originally posted by : S.gangadhar gowda
	Mrs. Smita You will have a right to reside in the shared household but you need to file an application to the court to get your right. If you need any further advice you can contact me 9980635871.

Thanks Samir for your views..... this joint family flat belonged to my husband's grandfather and then came to my husband's family share after the death of the grandfather. 

I have only 1 brother-in-law, no sisters and my father-in-law is alive. All of them live in seperate flats. This flat is under my brother-in-laws control and his wife is taking Rs.40,000 rent per month from it and my husband is not getting anything out of it. I have already filed DV application and hearings are going on. 

My husband is living with his parents in their self-acquired flat and brother-in-law living in a flat purchased by him from ancestral property income. My lawyer said I cannot claim right to residence in self-acquired flat of in-laws even though my husband lives there. 

Originally posted by : Samir N (2HelpU)
	The term "shared household" in the DV Act has been interpreted ad infinitum by different Courts. However, the seminal case on this subject I think is the Supreme Court's judgement in Batra vs. Batra.  Read that in detail.   I think that there are two DIFFERENT issues involved in your query. One involves the definition of the term SHARED HOUSEHOLD to see if the DV Act is applicable.  The other is the RIGHT TO RESIDENCE which is a totally independent right and issue after it is found that the DV Act is applicable.  Right to Residence, broadly speaking, is the duty of the husband to provide you a residence which may or may not be a Shared Household. I  doubt that if a residential property is NOT owned by the husband singly or jointly with you, you will qualify to get a right to live SPECIFICALLY in it. However, I cannot give you a definite answer because the facts of your case are also important. Do you have brother in laws? How big is the joint family? What percentage right does your husband have in this residential property? And many such facts should be known for any advocate to give you any definite answer. That said, I am NOT an advocate.

Your husband has, at most, if any, given that your father-in-law is alive, a partial interest in the referenced property. Therefore seeking a right to residence in that property, especially when you have never lived in it, is out of question. Also, your lawyer is absolutely right about "...I cannot claim right to residence in self-acquired flat of in-laws even though my husband lives there. " That is precisely what the Batra vs. Batra Supreme Court judgement is all about.  The only exception to this judgement is where the husband has transferred properties to in-laws name to subvert the wife's rights. As for brother-in-law's residential flat, it is also not possible for you to assert a right to residence there, even though it was bought from ancestral property income. First, it will be difficult for you to prove the source of monies for the purchase. Will take forever in Indian Courts to do so. Also, you never resided there with your husband as a place of permanent residence to bring it under the joint-family residence claim. Hope this helps... Again, I am not an advocate. 

If your husband's advocate is smart, he will get the entire DV case thrown out on technicality.  As you have always lived in your in-laws' place, that residence cannot be called a "shared household" under the definition and therefore the DV Act would not be applicable. Remember, marriage is not the essence of the DV Act. Living together in a shared household is.  If you did not share a household, you were not in a "domestic relationship" and therefore there could not have been any "domestic violence." This technical issue will have to be argued cogently by your husband's advocate to negate any judgements to the contrary based upon the specific facts of your case. He would have a good chance on appeal to win, even if the trial court rejects the argument. 

Provided your husband is staying in such property and the said property should be ancestral one, only then u can kabza over such property. If it is self earned property, pang naama for you.  All the best.

Hello Helping Hand,

Thanks for your response. 

Yes this is ancestral property and my son is 3rd generation legal heir to this property. First my application filed in Nov 2014 was only for me but as the case progressed and we came to know that my FIL and husband had gifted their share in this ancestral property to my BIL in August 2014 just 3 months before I filed the application. In the same month they also sold shares in some other ancestral flats to my husband's cousin and all compensation is taken by my BIL only.

My husband and I never stayed in this flat b'se it was always under the control of my BIL and he never lets us stay their. Actually the real fact is my SIL is keeping college girls in this flat and earning Rs.40,000 rent all these years and I never knew it. There is no registered agreement with this college girls to whom they rent this flat on per bed basis @ Rs.4,000 each for 10 girls. 

So we amended the application and made my son also party in beginning of Jan 2015. 

I am staying in rental flat and paying rent since almost 3 years and I have been asking my husband and his family to let us stay in this flat but they kept telling it was sold. My lawyer got hold of the gift deed and submitted a copy to the court on 8th Jan 2015.

Thanks

Smita 

Originally posted by : Helping Hand !
	Provided your husband is staying in such property and the said property should be ancestral one, only then u can kabza over such property. If it is self earned property, pang naama for you.  All the best.

shared household applies to the property in which u and ur husband last resided together.in your case u cant claim over the ansestral property

if ur husband is residing in the self aquired property of ur inlaws u can claim shared household but if ur inlaws doesnt accept it they can ask both u and ur husband to vacate the premises which u definitely need to oblige