Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in S.R. Batra and another Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra , 2007 (1) RCR (Crl.) 403 wherein dealing with the definition of shared house-hold under Section 2 (s) of the Act has held that the definition for shared household is not very happily worded and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting. The Apex Court has, in peculiar circumstances of the said case, had rejected the contention of counsel for wife to the effect that definition of shared house-hold would include house hold where person aggrieved had lived at any stage in domestic relationship. The Apex Court had not accepted the interpretation that wherever the husband and wife live together in the past that property becomes a shared house-hold because it is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places, i.e. husband’s father, husband’s paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles etc. etc. The Apex Court observed that if said interpretation is accepted, in that eventuality all the houses of the relatives will be shared house-hold and the wife could insist in living in all these houses of the husband’s relatives. It is also not out of place to observe here that the Apex Court had in said case refused to grant relief to a wife to stay in the house belonging to her mother-in-law under the residence order under Section 17 (1) of the Act. The Apex Court, in context to Section 19 (1) (g) of the Act held that in the said case the claim for alternative accommodation can only
