As per case facts, an 81-year-old Petitioner, who resided in her matrimonial home in Green Park since 1964, alleged domestic abuse and temporarily moved to her daughter's Safdarjung Enclave home ... for treatment in April 2023. Upon attempting to return in July 2023, she was denied re-entry, prompting her to seek a residence order under the DV Act. The lower courts dismissed her application, finding she had alternate accommodation at a property owned by the Respondent, and her residence in Green Park would lead to further disputes. The Petitioner argued her shift was temporary. The question arose whether the Green Park premises qualified as a "shared household" in praesenti and if denial of entry constituted domestic violence, warranting a residence order. Finally, the High Court found the dispute to be primarily about property, not domestic violence. It concluded that the Petitioner voluntarily shifted to alternate accommodation and was not roofless, thus the Green Park property was no longer a "shared household" in praesenti. Denying re-entry was not domestic violence given her alternate residence, and a residence order was unwarranted, converting the protective statute into a re-entry rule.