The Delhi High Court ruled that a woman’s right to residence under the PWDV Act is not absolute and must be balanced with the senior citizens’ right to live peacefully and with dignity in their own home.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling, the Delhi High Court has clarified that a woman’s right to residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) is not absolute or permanent and must be balanced with the rights of senior citizens and in-laws to live peacefully in their own property.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar. The Court held that while the PWDV Act provides an important protective right to women, it does not give them ownership or indefinite possession of a shared household.
Court’s Observation
The Bench emphasized that the law ensures adequacy of residence, not parity of luxury.
“The right of residence is meant to ensure safety and stability, not to perpetuate occupation of a large family home at the cost of the lawful owners,”
the Court observed.
It further noted that the right of residence under the PWDV Act is a protective measure, not a permanent property right. The judges underlined that courts must carefully balance the woman’s right to security with the in-laws’ right to live with dignity and peace in their own home.
According to the Bench:
“The larger principle that emerges is 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 Court stated that the PWDV Act cannot be used to extinguish or indefinitely suspend the rights of elderly parents or in-laws. Instead, the law must function to preserve both safety and serenity, especially when family relationships have broken down irretrievably.
Background of the Case
The judgment came while dismissing an appeal filed by a woman against a September 2025 order of a single-judge bench directing her to vacate her in-laws’ house.
The case stemmed from a prolonged marital dispute between the woman and her husband, with over two dozen litigations pending between family members.
Her in-laws claimed that the household environment had become “toxic and unliveable” and sought her eviction, offering to bear the rent and costs of an alternative accommodation.
The woman, however, argued that the house was her shared household and that any eviction would violate her statutory right under the PWDV Act.
Rejecting the woman’s appeal, the High Court ruled that the in-laws’ offer of alternative accommodation fully protected her rights under Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act.
The Court directed that she be provided with a two-bedroom flat in a comparable locality within four weeks, with the in-laws covering all rent and utility expenses.
Appearance:
For the woman: Advocates Prabhjit Jauhar, Shreya Narayan and Anupama Kaul
For the in-laws: Advocates Preeti Singh, Sunklan Porwal, Anuradha Anand, Kirti Dhaiya, Sakshi Trivedi and Akshay Chabra
Case Title:
Manju Arora v Neelam Arora & Anr
RFA(OS) 64/2025, CM APPL. 64541/2025 and CM APPL. 64542/2025
READ JUDGMENT
