The High Court of Delhi, in a significant judgment, has ruled that a daughter-in-law’s right of residence in a “shared household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) is “not absolute or permanent” and must be balanced with the right of senior citizen in-laws to live peacefully and with dignity in their own property.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an appeal filed by a daughter-in-law (Appellant) challenging a Single Judge’s order that directed her eviction from her in-laws’ (Respondents) property. The court upheld the decree of mandatory injunction, finding that the Respondents’ offer to provide suitable alternate accommodation sufficiently protected the Appellant’s rights under Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act.
The core legal issue, as framed by the Court, was “whether senior citizens are entitled to live peacefully with dignity in their own property, particularly when adequate steps have been taken to protect the Daughter-in-Law by the In-Laws?”
Background of the Case
The case originated from a suit, CS(OS) No. 606/2023, filed by the Respondents—senior citizens and parents-in-law of the Appellant—seeking a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction. The Respondents averred that they were the absolute owners of the suit property, having purchased it from their own funds. They stated the Appellant was permitted to reside therein “purely out of love and affection” following her marriage to their son.
It was the Respondents’ case that the matrimonial relationship between their son and the Appellant had become acrimonious, leading to numerous altercations, police complaints, and proceedings under the PWDV Act. They contended the atmosphere in the house had become “toxic and unliveable,” affecting their health and peace. The Respondents offered to provide alternate accommodation for the Appellant.
The learned Single Judge, in a judgment dated 09.09.2025, granted a decree of mandatory injunction, directing the Appellant to vacate the suit property. This order was conditional upon the Respondents providing a three-bedroom alternate accommodation with rent up to Rs. 65,000/- per month and associated costs, thereby securing her rights under Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act.
Contentions of the Appellant (Daughter-in-Law)
The Appellant assailed the Single Judge’s judgment on several grounds:
- The suit property constitutes her “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act, and her right to reside therein under Section 17 is independent of ownership, subsisting as long as the marital relationship continues. Reliance was placed on Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja.
- The suit was not maintainable without impleading her husband as a party.
- The decree was wrongly granted under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, as there was no “clear admission” warranting such a judgment.
- The Respondents were “forum shopping,” having previously failed to secure eviction orders under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and from a Metropolitan Magistrate under the PWDV Act.
- The alternate accommodation offered (Rs. 65,000/- per month) was not commensurate with the lifestyle enjoyed in the suit property, which the Appellant claimed would command a rental of Rs. 1,30,000/- per month.
- The Single Judge erred in finding that separate living within the same premises was impracticable, suggesting the basement or other portions could have been partitioned.
Contentions of the Respondents (Parents-in-Law)
The Respondents, supporting the impugned judgment, contended:
- They are senior citizens and absolute owners of the self-acquired property.
- They have been subjected to “constant mental agony, humiliation, and disturbance,” with approximately twenty-five (25) litigations pending between the family members, demonstrating an “irretrievable breakdown of familial harmony.”
- Compelling them to cohabitate would deny their right to live peacefully with dignity, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and the MWPSC Act.
- The physical layout of the property (a duplex with common areas, single kitchen, and shared entry) makes separate residence impracticable.
- Their voluntary offer of alternate accommodation (Rs. 65,000/- per month plus all allied costs) fully safeguards the Appellant’s rights.
- Relying on Satish Chandra Ahuja (supra), they argued the right of residence is one of occupation, not ownership, and is not indefeasible. The PWDV Act’s object is to ensure the woman is not shelterless, not to “confer a right to parity in opulence.”
- They argued a two-bedroom flat would be sufficient, as the Appellant resides alone and her daughter is settled abroad.
High Court’s Findings and Analysis
The Division Bench, after hearing both parties, affirmed the Single Judge’s findings. The Court noted it was undisputed that the Respondents own the property and that “severe matrimonial discord” exists, resulting in 25 pending cases.
The Bench held that continued cohabitation under one roof was “wholly impracticable and inconsistent with peaceful and dignified living.” It stated, “The Respondents, being senior citizens in the twilight of their lives, cannot reasonably be expected to endure constant bickering and hostility within their own home. Their right to peace and dignity within their self-acquired property must be given due recognition and protection.”
Addressing the Appellant’s reliance on Satish Chandra Ahuja (supra), the Court held the reliance was “misplaced.” The judgment observed:
“The said judgment clarified that the right of residence conferred upon an aggrieved woman under the PWDV Act is a right of occupation, not ownership, and is not indefeasible. It is a statutory protection against destitution and must be balanced against competing rights of other stakeholders, including senior citizens who are owners in possession of the property.”
The Court upheld the use of Order XII Rule 6 CPC, stating that with ownership admitted, the only defense was the right of residence under the PWDV Act. The Court found “there was no bona fide triable issue” once the Respondents offered to secure alternate accommodation.
The judgment further elaborated on the nature of the “shared household” concept:
“As already noticed, the concept of shared household is to protect destitute women from forcible eviction rendering them without shelter. It is essentially a right of occupation… It is not a proprietary right conferring indefeasible title; rather, it is a statutory right of residence which, in appropriate cases, may be secured by the provision of alternate accommodation under Section 19(1)(f).”
The Bench found the Appellant’s demand for identically sized accommodation to be “misconceived,” stating, “The PWDV Act does not guarantee parity of luxury, but adequacy of residence.”
The Court concluded that a “delicate balance” must be struck between the competing rights. It held:
“The right of residence under the PWDV Act is not absolute or permanent; it is a right of protection, not possession. Equally, the right of senior citizens to live peacefully with dignity in their own property is not subordinate to this statutory protection.”
Decision and Operative Directions
The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal infirmity in the Single Judge’s order. However, it modified the operative directions slightly for clarity.
The Court clarified that the alternate accommodation shall be a “two-bedroom flat in a locality reasonably comparable” to the suit property. The Respondents are directed to bear the rent “up to Rs. 65,000/- per month,” in addition to paying the security deposit, maintenance, brokerage, and all electricity and water charges.
The Respondents must identify and offer the accommodation within four weeks from the judgment date (Oct 30, 2025), and the Appellant shall vacate the suit property within two weeks of such an offer.
In its concluding observation, the Court stated:
“While the PWDV Act confers a vital and protective right of residence upon an aggrieved woman, it cannot be construed to extinguish or indefinitely suspend the right of senior citizens to live without distress in their own home. The law must operate in a manner that preserves both safety and serenity…”
