In which of the following cases, Supreme Court of India upheld that that even if the husband does not hold the ownership of the house then also it will be called a shared household under the definition of Domestic Violence Act, 2005?

Question

Delhi High Court held that, the right of residence of a wife in a shared household is not permanent if the property is owned by the in-laws who wish to evict her. “Admittedly, the right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act is not an indefeasible right of residence in a shared household, especially, when the daughter-in-law is pitted against the aged father-in-law and mother-in-law.”
A magistrate under section 19 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, may pass a residence order if the magistrate is satisfied that the wife has suffered Domestic Violence.
In Roma Rajesh Tiwari v. Rajesh Dinanath Tiwari Bombay High Court held that women have the right to reside in their matrimonial house.
In R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, the Supreme Court held that a wife has the right to claim the right to residence for a shared household. However, the shared household has been interpreted as the house in which the husband is a member.
In Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, Supreme Court struck down its earlier judgement in R. Batra v. Taruna Batra. It held that even if the husband does not hold the ownership of the house then also it will be called a shared household under the definition of Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

GKToday Admin · Accepted Answer

Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja

Delhi High Court held that, the right of residence of a wife in a shared household is not permanent if the property is owned by the in-laws who wish to evict her. “Admittedly, the right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act is not an indefeasible right of residence in a shared household, especially, when the daughter-in-law is pitted against the aged father-in-law and mother-in-law.”
A magistrate under section 19 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, may pass a residence order if the magistrate is satisfied that the wife has suffered Domestic Violence.
In Roma Rajesh Tiwari v. Rajesh Dinanath Tiwari Bombay High Court held that women have the right to reside in their matrimonial house.
In R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, the Supreme Court held that a wife has the right to claim the right to residence for a shared household. However, the shared household has been interpreted as the house in which the husband is a member.
In Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, Supreme Court struck down its earlier judgement in R. Batra v. Taruna Batra. It held that even if the husband does not hold the ownership of the house then also it will be called a shared household under the definition of Domestic Violence Act, 2005.