The Delhi High Court has held that a wife cannot insist on a residence order for a specific property under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) if she has voluntarily shifted to an alternate accommodation provided by the husband and is not “roofless.”
Justice Ravinder Dudeja dismissed a petition filed by an 81-year-old woman seeking re-entry into her matrimonial home in Green Park, observing that the proceedings appeared to be a property dispute disguised as a domestic violence complaint.
Case Background
The petitioner, Reena Grover, married Respondent No. 1, Ramesh Grover, in 1964 and resided in the matrimonial home at C-7, Green Park, South Delhi. On April 13, 2023, the petitioner shifted to her daughter’s residence at B-5/204, Safdarjung Enclave, reportedly for post-operative care.
The petitioner alleged that when she attempted to re-enter the Green Park property on July 8, 2023, she was forcibly denied entry. Consequently, she filed an application under Section 19 read with Section 23 of the DV Act.
The Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) dismissed her application on February 29, 2024, noting that the Safdarjung Enclave property, where she was residing, also belonged to her husband. The MM held that the husband was in “constructive possession” of the Safdarjung property and had provided it as residence. An appeal against this order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) on September 7, 2024.
Submissions of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner argued that she had lived in the Green Park house uninterruptedly for 60 years and had left only temporarily for medical treatment. It was submitted that the respondent had filed an eviction suit against the daughter regarding the Safdarjung Enclave property, and thus, he could not claim to have discharged his obligation of providing shelter in a house he was seeking to vacate. The petitioner claimed she was currently staying with her grandson in Gurugram and was effectively shelter-less.
Conversely, the respondents argued that the litigation was essentially a property dispute. They submitted that the petitioner voluntarily left the Green Park house to shift to the Safdarjung property with her daughter. The respondents emphasized that the husband had no objection to the petitioner residing in the Safdarjung Enclave property, which he owned. They alleged that the petitioner had affixed her nameplate at the Safdarjung house, indicating a conscious decision to shift.
High Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Dudeja observed that the material on record demonstrated that the petitioner was not without shelter. The Court noted that in her initial complaint and police reports, the petitioner had listed the Safdarjung Enclave address as her residence.
The Court laid down the following key legal principles regarding residence orders under Section 19 of the DV Act:
1. Object of the Act: The Court stated that the object of the statute is protective and remedial. It is “not to confer an indefeasible right upon the aggrieved person to insist upon residence in a particular property when suitable alternate accommodation of the same standard is available and offered.”
2. Shared Household: Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021), the Court observed that while “shared household” requires broad interpretation, it is a fact-sensitive determination. Justice Dudeja remarked:
“A shared household must be a subsisting sharehood in praesenti, not one surviving merely in historical memory.”
3. Voluntary Relocation: The Court found that the petitioner’s move was voluntary. The Court noted:
“The DV Act secures protection against dispossession, it does not compel reinstatement into a residence abandoned by choice.”
4. Domestic Violence and Economic Abuse: The Court held that since the petitioner voluntarily shifted to an alternate residence owned by her husband, the denial of re-entry into the previous home did not constitute economic abuse.
“Consequently, the alleged denial of re-entry into the Green Park premises does not, in the facts of the case, constitute domestic violence in the nature of economic abuse, since there was no forcible dispossession, coercion, or rendering of the petitioner roofless.”
Decision
The High Court upheld the orders of the courts below, stating that compelling restoration would disturb the settled possession of the current occupants at the Green Park property. The Court concluded that the relief sought would “effectively convert a property dispute into a domestic violence proceeding, which is impermissible.”
The petition was dismissed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Reena Grover vs. Sh. Ramesh Grover & Ors
- Case Number: CRL.M.C. 8722/2024
- Coram: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
