Woman's Right To Shared Household Under Section 17 DV Act Not Licence To Indefinitely Occupy In-Laws’ Property; Delhi High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar has dismissed an appeal by a daughter-in-law against an interim order requiring her to vacate premises owned by her senior citizen parents-in-law, while upholding directions for alternate rented accommodation and financial safeguards for her and the minor children. Clarifying Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Bench has held that a woman’s right to reside in a shared household operates as a protective measure rather than an ownership interest or authority to occupy in-laws’ property indefinitely when such residence causes demonstrable harm to senior citizens, and that this protection must be weighed against their right to peaceful possession and enjoyment of their property, consistent with Supreme Court authority.
The appellant challenged an order dated 09.09.2025 directing her to vacate the residential property owned by Respondent Nos.1 and 2, her parents-in-law. The respondents had filed a suit seeking a mandatory injunction and asserted that continuous acrimony within the household, supported by counsellor and police reports as well as medical records of Respondent No.2, had made co-residence untenable.
The appellant opposed the suit, disputing maintainability, alleging collusion between the respondents and asserting a statutory right of residence under Section 17 of the PWDV Act. She relied on her interim protection from dispossession granted on 22.12.2023. The factual matrix included matrimonial disputes, custody proceedings, the shifting of Respondent No.3 in December 2023 along with the children, and subsequent judicial orders resulting in the daughter residing with the appellant.
The Single Judge concluded that the atmosphere in the suit property was toxic and directed provision of alternate rented accommodation with detailed financial safeguards, while allowing the appellant to select an apartment of her choice within thirty days. The appellant assailed the eviction direction as an impermissible grant of final relief at an interim stage.
The Court recorded that “the level of acrimony within the household had reached a point where it had begun to adversely affect both the health of Respondent No.2 and the well-being of the children.” It noted that “the right under Section 17 of the PWDV Act is a right of protection, not a right of ownership or a licence to indefinitely occupy premises of the in-laws when such occupation causes demonstrable harm to senior citizens.” The Bench stated that material on record “clearly revealed that the atmosphere had become so toxic that cohabitation under one roof had become unworkable.” It further observed that “such right is subject to balancing against the rights of senior citizen parents to peaceful possession and enjoyment of their property.”
The Court referred to the Division Bench judgement in Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora, noting that the PWDV Act “does not entitle the daughter-in-law to remain indefinitely in premises owned by the parents-in-law when continued cohabitation has become detrimental to their health and dignity.” It recorded that “the PWDV Act does not override the autonomy, dignity, or residential rights of senior citizens in their own property.” The Bench stated that the Single Judge had “acted in consonance with the ratio… in holding that the Appellant’s statutory protections could be meaningfully preserved while ensuring the elderly Respondents could reside peacefully in their own property.”
The Court examined the suitability of the alternate accommodation and observed that the arrangement “is neither illusory nor inadequate but reflects a bona fide attempt by the Respondents to balance their own rights as senior citizens with the welfare of the children and the Appellant.” It stated that “the Appellant continues to receive a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- per month as maintenance” and that financial safeguards ensured stability for the appellant and children. It further recorded that the interim measure “safeguards her welfare and that of the children while simultaneously alleviating the acute distress experienced by the elderly parents-in-law.”
Addressing the challenge to the interim mandatory injunction, the Court stated that “the status quo in the household had become wholly unworkable” and that “the Impugned Order cannot be characterised as granting final relief in the suit.” It recorded that the arrangement “is compensatory, protective, and reversible” and that “the interim relief is not punitive.” The Court concluded that no alternative such as separate floors was feasible, noting that “physical separation within the same premises did not and could not create emotional or practical separation.”
The Court stated: “For the aforegoing reasons, this Court finds no infirmity, impropriety, or perversity in the Impugned Order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. The directions issued therein are balanced, equitable, and necessary in the facts of the case. The arrangement ensures protection of the Appellant and the minor children while simultaneously safeguarding the legitimate rights of Respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are entitled to peaceful residence in their own home.” It further recorded that “the interim arrangement as set out in paragraph nos.42 to 53 of the Impugned Order shall continue to operate in full force. For completeness, the same are reiterated herein.”
The Court directed that “the plaintiffs are directed to provide an alternate accommodation to defendant no. 2 on the following terms and conditions: Rental of Rs. 2.50 lakhs per month with a bi-annual increase of 10%; Security deposit demanded by the landlord to be paid by the plaintiffs; The plaintiffs will bear the brokerage charges; Advance rent equivalent to 6 months to be deposited by the plaintiffs with the defendant no. 2; A registered lease deed/rent agreement will be executed for a minimum period of two years; Maintenance charges payable to the RWA/Managing Agency of the Complex, on actual basis and the electricity/water charges, on actual basis to be borne by the plaintiffs; The plaintiffs will bear the cost of shifting/transportation of the goods of defendant no. 2 from the suit property to the rental property.”
“The defendant no. 2 will be at liberty to select an apartment of her choice within 30 days from today… in the same Complex where defendant no. 1 is residing or any other Complex or neighbourhood, whether in Delhi or in Gurugram.” It added that “in case, the defendant no. 2 fails to select an apartment of her choice within 30 days, the plaintiffs will be at liberty to select an apartment in Central Park-II township, situated in Sector–48, Gurugram, Haryana.”
“The defendant no. 2 will vacate the suit property within 60 days from the passing of this order” and that “defendant no. 2 is hereby injuncted from entering the suit property after expiry of the 60 days. In case, the plaintiffs default in making payments towards rental, etc. as stipulated… resulting in the defendant no. 2’s being evicted from the rental property, the defendant no. 2 will be entitled to return to the suit property and reside therein.”
“The defendant no. 1 will not shift back into the suit property without seeking prior permission of this Court. The plaintiffs will continue to pay the school fees including tuition fees and all other educational expenses of the grandchildren.”
“The plaintiffs will not create any third-party interests in the suit property until the final disposal of the suit, by maintaining status quo qua title of the suit property. The aforesaid arrangement shall continue during the subsistence of the matrimonial relationship between defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2. The period of compliances to be made by the parties shall be counted from 01.01.2026.”
“The observations contained in this judgment are prima facie and confined to the determination of interlocutory relief. The learned Single Judge shall proceed with CS(OS) 19/2024 uninfluenced by any findings herein and decide the suit on its own merits based on evidence. All the pending applications stand closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Ms. Malvika Choudhary, Ms. Neha Jain, Mr. Taarak Duggal, Ms. Sneha Mathew, Ms. Vaishnavi Saxena, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms. Nattasha Garg, Mr. Aadarsh Kothari, Mr. Utpal Sharma, Ms. Rini Mehra, Advocates; Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Mr. Arjun Syal, Mr. Naman Verma, Advocates.
Case Title: X V Y
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:10984-DB
Case Number: FAO(OS) 119/2025
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetrapal, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
