Shared household is a household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, whether or not the person has any legal right, title, or interest in the property. Under Indian law, the concept is defined in Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and forms the basis for residence orders and related protections.
Legal definition
Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides:
"shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.
Section 17(1) provides the substantive right linked to this definition:
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.
How courts have interpreted this term
Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja [(2021) 1 SCC 414]
The Supreme Court delivered the definitive interpretation of "shared household," overruling the restrictive approach in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007). The Court held that a shared household includes any household where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any legal interest in the property. The Court specifically held that a property owned exclusively by the in-laws qualifies as a shared household if the aggrieved person lived there as part of a domestic relationship.
S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra [(2007) 3 SCC 169]
The Supreme Court initially held that a shared household means only a house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or a house belonging to the joint family of which the husband is a member. A property exclusively owned by the mother-in-law could not be a shared household. This restrictive interpretation was criticised for defeating the protective purpose of the DV Act and was overruled by the Satish Chander Ahuja decision.
Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi [(2022) SCC Online SC 536]
The Supreme Court further expanded the concept, holding that the right to reside in a shared household extends to a woman who has not actually lived there, provided she had the right to do so. The Court introduced the concept of "constructive residence," observing that a domestic violence victim cannot be denied relief merely because domestic violence compelled her to live elsewhere.
Why this matters
The definition of "shared household" is the gateway to all residence-related protections under the DV Act. Without establishing that a particular property qualifies as a shared household, a woman cannot seek a residence order under Section 19, nor can she invoke her right to reside under Section 17. The progressive judicial expansion of this definition has been instrumental in making the DV Act effective.
The journey from S.R. Batra (2007) to Satish Chander Ahuja (2021) represents a fundamental shift in how Indian courts approach the protection of women's residence rights. Under the restrictive S.R. Batra interpretation, a daughter-in-law had no right to reside in a house owned by her mother-in-law — a position that left countless women without protection since matrimonial homes in India are frequently owned by the husband's parents, not by the husband himself. The Satish Chander Ahuja ruling corrected this by holding that the plain language of Section 2(s) includes any household where the woman has lived in a domestic relationship.
For practitioners, establishing that a property qualifies as a shared household is the essential first step in any residence-related application under the DV Act. The key evidence required is that the aggrieved person lived in the property as part of a domestic relationship with the respondent. Documentary evidence such as ration cards, voter ID cards, postal addresses, school records of children, and utility bills can establish residence.
Related terms
Broader concepts:
Related DV Act concepts:
Related concepts:
Frequently asked questions
Can a house owned by the mother-in-law be a shared household?
Yes. Following Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021), which overruled S.R. Batra (2007), a property owned exclusively by the in-laws qualifies as a shared household if the aggrieved person lived there as part of a domestic relationship. The woman's right under Section 17 is not dependent on her having any ownership interest.
Does the woman need to be currently living in the house for it to be a shared household?
No. Section 2(s) uses the words "lives or at any stage has lived." A property where the woman previously lived in a domestic relationship also qualifies. The Supreme Court in Prabha Tyagi (2022) further held that even constructive residence suffices.
Can a rented house be a shared household?
Yes. Section 2(s) expressly includes a household that is "owned or tenanted" by either or both parties. A rented house where the aggrieved person lived with the respondent qualifies as a shared household.
What is the effect of the woman voluntarily leaving the shared household?
Voluntary departure does not extinguish the woman's right to reside in the shared household under Section 17. If the departure was caused by domestic violence, the woman retains her right to return and can seek a residence order to restore her possession.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.