Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that senior citizens cannot be indefinitely deprived of peaceful residence in their own home once adequate arrangements are made to safeguard a daughter-in-law’s right of shelter under the Domestic Violence Act. Upholding an order directing the daughter-in-law to vacate her in-laws’ self-acquired property while being provided alternate accommodation at their cost, the Court observed that the statutory right of residence is one of protection and not ownership. It stated that senior citizens’ entitlement to live without distress must coexist with, not be eclipsed by, such protective rights.

The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by elderly parents-in-law, who are senior citizens and owners of a self-acquired property in New Delhi, seeking a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction against their daughter-in-law. They contended that she had been permitted to reside in the house out of affection, without any legal entitlement, and that escalating marital discord between her and their son had created an unliveable environment. They claimed the right to live peacefully and offered to provide her alternate accommodation in accordance with Section 19(1)(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Also Read: Counsel Must Refrain Once Bench Indicates Its Mind as Continued Insistence Affects Decorum : Supreme Court Deletes Remarks and Cost Against State Election Commission

The daughter-in-law opposed the claim, asserting that the premises constituted her shared household under Section 2(s) of the Act, and that she could not be evicted except as provided by law. She argued that her husband was a necessary party, that prior proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and under the Domestic Violence Act had already denied eviction, and that the new civil suit amounted to forum shopping. She further contended that she had resided in the property for over two decades and that any alternate accommodation must match the standard and facilities of the existing premises.

The respondents submitted documents establishing ownership and highlighted numerous litigations between the family members, asserting that cohabitation had become impossible. They relied on precedents including Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja to argue that the right of residence under the Domestic Violence Act is a right of occupation, not ownership. The Court examined the pleadings, architectural layout of the single-unit dwelling, and the undertaking by the parents-in-law to bear rent, maintenance, and all related costs for a comparable independent residence for the appellant.

The Bench observed that the “pivotal question for determination … is whether senior citizens, being the absolute owners of their self-acquired property, are entitled to live peacefully with dignity therein, particularly when adequate steps have been taken to protect the residential rights of the daughter-in-law under the PWDV Act.”

It recorded that “the essential facts are not in dispute. The Respondents are the undisputed owners of the suit property, having purchased it from their own funds, and the Appellant is the daughter-in-law, residing therein consequent upon her marriage to their son.” The Court noted that “continued cohabitation of all family members under one roof … is wholly impracticable and inconsistent with peaceful and dignified living.”

The Court stated that the appellant’s reliance on Satish Chandra Ahuja was misplaced, clarifying 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 further recorded that the judgment “does not hold that the right of residence is perpetual or that the woman cannot be required to shift if suitable alternate accommodation is made available.”

Referring to Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Bench observed that “there is no dispute about the ownership of the Respondents/Plaintiffs. The only defence of the Appellant is with respect to the right of residence based on the concept of shared household.”

The judges stated that “the concept of shared household is to protect destitute women from forcible eviction rendering them without shelter … 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.”

They recorded that “the Respondents have offered to make adequate alternative arrangements … by paying monthly rent of Rs. 65,000/- together with security deposit, brokerage, maintenance, electricity and water charges.” The Bench observed that “the PWDV Act does not guarantee parity of luxury, but adequacy of residence.”

Also Read: Criminal Prosecution Quashed After Exoneration in Departmental and Vigilance Inquiries: Delhi High Court

In summation, the Court stated that “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.”

The Bench directed that “the alternate accommodation to be provided to the Appellant shall be a two-bedroom flat in a locality reasonably comparable to that of the suit property.” It ordered that “the Respondents shall bear the rent up to Rs. 65,000/- per month, in addition to paying the security deposit, maintenance, brokerage, electricity, and water charges directly to the landlord or service providers, as applicable. “The alternate accommodation shall be identified and offered to the Appellant within four weeks … Upon such offer being made, the Appellant shall, within two weeks, vacate the suit property and hand over peaceful possession thereof to the Respondents.” The appeal was dismissed.

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms. Shreya Narayan, and Ms. Anupama Kaul, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ms. Preeti Singh, Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Ms. Anuradha Anand, Ms. Kirti Dhaiya, Ms. Sakshi Trivedi, and Mr. Akshay Chabra, Advocates.

Case Title: XXX v YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9456-DB
Case Number: RFA(OS) 64/2025
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar