The Delhi High Court held that a wife’s right to reside in her shared household under the Domestic Violence Act cannot be denied merely because her husband was disowned by his parents, affirming that the marital home qualifies as shared regardless of ownership.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a wife’s entitlement to reside in her shared household, as defined by the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), cannot be undermined simply because her husband has been disowned by his parents. Once a woman moves into a home with her husband and in-laws after marriage, that residence qualifies as a shared household, regardless of ownership or title.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, while dismissing petitions from both the daughter-in-law and her in-laws, affirmed that the wife’s residence in the matrimonial home immediately following marriage brings the property under the scope of Section 2(s) of the DV Act.
The Court highlighted that Section 17(1) grants a woman the right to reside in such a household, and Section 17(2) prevents her eviction except through due legal process.
Justice Narula observed,
“The Respondent married on 14th November 2010 and, immediately thereafter, began residing at the subject premises with her husband and in-laws. That residence brings the premises within Section 2(s): it is a household where she lived in a domestic relationship. Once that threshold is crossed, Section 17(1) confers a right of residence irrespective of title, and Section 17(2) forbids eviction except by due process. The contention that the husband moved out in 2011, or that the parents-in-law disowned him, does not denude the house of its character as a shared household,”
The couple, who married in November 2010, initially lived with the husband’s parents. In November 2011, due to marital discord, they moved to a rented space. The in-laws claimed that prior to this move, they had disowned their son from all assets.
However, the wife argued that she was forcibly removed from her matrimonial home and that her belongings were taken without her consent.
She filed a complaint under the DV Act asserting her right to reside in the shared household (specifically the ground floor of the family property). The mother-in-law also filed a complaint under the same Act seeking protective orders against the daughter-in-law and her relatives.
The trial court found that the mother-in-law was not an “aggrieved person” under the DV Act but granted her limited protection regarding the first floor of the property.
At the same time, the daughter-in-law’s right to reside on the ground floor was affirmed, and she could not be ordered to vacate or pay occupation charges. Both parties appealed, but the sessions court dismissed their appeals in a common ruling.
Also Read: “Law Should Build Bridges, Not Walls”: Justice Surya Kant
Upholding the decisions of the lower courts, Justice Narula dismissed the in-laws’ argument that the wife’s residence was mala fide or merely symbolic, describing it as a “selective and unconvincing reliance on electricity bills.”
The Court asserted that the trial and appellate courts had effectively balanced the interests of both parties.
The Court said,
“The existing arrangement, whereby the Petitioners occupy the first floor, and the Respondent resides on the ground floor, sufficiently accommodates both interests. It neither deprives the Petitioners of possession nor leaves the Respondent shelterless. The residence order, limited to preventing dispossession without due process, operates as a safeguard rather than a sanction,”
By emphasizing proportionality and fairness, the High Court concluded that the property qualified as a shared household, and the wife’s right to reside there was fully protected under the DV Act.
The residence orders that restricted eviction or alienation were deemed lawful and within the court’s jurisdiction.
Under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), the term “shared household” is defined in Section 2(s). It means a house where the aggrieved woman lives or has lived with the respondent (such as husband or partner) in a domestic relationship, either owned, rented, or even jointly or singly held by either of them.
The key points about a shared household are:
- It can be a house belonging to or taken on rent by either the woman or the respondent.
- It can also include a joint family property in which the respondent has a share.
- The woman has a right to reside in such a household, irrespective of ownership or title.
- Section 17 of the DV Act guarantees that she cannot be evicted or excluded from the shared household except in accordance with the law.
The Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020) clarified that a “shared household” need not be owned or rented by the husband; if the couple has lived there in a domestic relationship, it qualifies as a shared household.
Case Title: Khushwant Kaur v. Smt. Gagandeep Sidhu & Other Connected Matters
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
