The Delhi High Court held a wife cannot seek residence under the DV Act if she moved to housing and is not roofless. Court said the law protects against dispossession, not reinstatement to a home abandoned by choice.
The Delhi High Court ruled that under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), a wife cannot demand a specific residence order if she has willingly moved to alternative accommodations provided by her husband and is not roofless.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja dismissed a petition from an 81-year-old woman requesting re-entry into her matrimonial home in Green Park, stating that the case appeared to be a property dispute disguised as a complaint of domestic violence.
The petitioner, Reena Grover, married Ramesh Grover in 1964 and lived in their matrimonial home at C-7, Green Park, South Delhi.
ALSO READ: Husband Rolling In Money: Court Raises Domestic Violence Compensation to Rs 1 Crore
Earlier, On April 13, 2023, she relocated to her daughter’s residence at B-5/204, Safdarjung Enclave, for post-operative recovery. When she attempted to return to the Green Park property on July 8, 2023, she was reportedly denied entry.
Following this, she filed an application under Section 19 in conjunction with Section 23 of the DV Act.
However, the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed her application on February 29, 2024, noting that the Safdarjung property, where she was living, also belonged to her husband.
The Magistrate determined that the husband had constructive possession of the Safdarjung property, which he had provided as her residence. An appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on September 7, 2024.
ALSO READ: Husband Rolling In Money: Court Raises Domestic Violence Compensation to Rs 1 Crore
The petitioner’s counsel argued that she had lived in the Green Park home uninterrupted for 60 years, leaving only temporarily for medical treatment. They contended that the respondent’s eviction suit against the daughter regarding the Safdarjung property disqualified him from claiming that he provided suitable shelter.
The petitioner asserted that she was currently living with her grandson in Gurugram and was effectively without proper shelter. On the other hand, the respondents maintained that this litigation was fundamentally a property dispute.
They argued that the petitioner had voluntarily shifted to the Safdarjung property with her daughter and emphasized that the husband did not object to her residing there, highlighting that she even affixed her nameplate to the Safdarjung house, suggesting her conscious decision to relocate.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021), the Court noted that while the term “shared household” requires broad interpretation, it is ultimately a fact-sensitive determination.
Justice Dudeja remarked,
“A shared household must be a subsisting sharehood in praesenti, not one surviving merely in historical memory.”
The Court determined that the petitioner’s relocation was voluntary, stating,
“The DV Act secures protection against dispossession, it does not compel reinstatement into a residence abandoned by choice.”
The Court concluded that since the petitioner chose to move to an alternate residence owned by her husband, the denial of her re-entry into the previous home did not equate to economic abuse.
ALSO READ: Celina Jaitly Alleges Domestic Violence by Husband Peter Haag, Mumbai Court Issues Notice
It stated,
“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.”
The High Court upheld the lower court rulings, indicating that requiring her restoration would disrupt the settled occupancy of the current residents in the Green Park property.
It concluded that the relief sought would “effectively convert a property dispute into a domestic violence proceeding, which is impermissible.”
Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Reena Grover vs. Sh. Ramesh Grover & Ors
Click Here to Read More Reports On Domestic Violence