Site navigation

A woman relies on her past actual residence in a domestic relationship to show that premises were her…

When actual residence is relied on, Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja requires residence of some permanence. A fleeting stay alone does not suffice. Joint-family ownership…

Choose your answer

A woman relies on her past actual residence in a domestic relationship to show that premises were her shared household. Which statement reflects Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020) on section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer A

When actual residence is relied on, Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja requires residence of some permanence. A fleeting stay alone does not suffice. Joint-family ownership and an ownership or tenancy interest in the aggrieved person's own name are unnecessary under section 2(s).

Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi separately recognises constructive residence under section 17.

Option feedback

Option A

The Court requires residence of some permanence in a domestic relationship. The premises need not belong to a joint family.

Option B

A fleeting or casual stay by itself is insufficient. The character of the residence matters.

Option C

The Court rejected a restriction to joint-family property. Section 2(s) is broader.

Option D

Section 2(s) can cover a household even where the aggrieved person has no ownership or tenancy interest of her own.

Practice for these exams

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic