The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja (Civil Appeal No. 2483 of 2020, decided on 15.10.2020) has held that the two-judge bench judgment in S.R. Batra and Anr. vs Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169 has not correctly interpreted the definition of ‘Shared Household’ as envisaged in Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The three-judge bench after discussing the intent and the object of the 2005 Act has opined that the use of the expression ‘at any stage has lived’ immediately after the words “person aggrieved lives” has been used for object different to what has been apprehended by this Court in paragraph 26. The expression “at any stage has lived” has been used to protect the women from denying the benefit of the right to live in a shared household on the ground that on the date when the application is filed, she was excluded from the possession of the house or temporarily absent. The use of the expression “at any stage has lived” is for the above purpose and not with the object that wherever the aggrieved person has lived with the relatives of the husband, all such houses shall become a shared household, which is not the legislative intent. The shared household is contemplated to be the household, which is a dwelling place of an aggrieved person in the present time. The Court held that the shared household referred to in Section 2(s) is the shared household of the aggrieved person where she was living at the time when the Application was filed or in the recent past had been excluded from the use or she is temporarily absent.