Can police lock out a husband’s mother and sisters because he is avoiding the court? Under the Domestic Violence Act, the Supreme Court has held, they cannot be ousted from the shared household merely because he fails to appear, and it ordered the attachment of their home to be lifted forthwith.
New Delhi: A house attached and locked by the police because a husband, said to be living in Saudi Arabia, was avoiding a domestic violence case cannot stand, the Supreme Court has held, setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court order under which his mother and sisters were ousted from their home [Shahjahan and Others v. Yasmeen and Others].
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi relied on the proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which states that no order directing removal from the shared household can be passed against a woman. The Bench directed that the attachment be raised forthwith.
Attachment is not eviction
The Bench held that the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the complainant could not have been ousted for the non-appearance of the husband. It added that an attachment, if any, would at most make the property custodia legis to prevent encumbrances.
“Even otherwise, the attachment even if any, would only mean and include the attachment of the property to prevent any encumbrance being created on the said property or in other words, the said property becoming custodia legis namely it would come to the custody of the Court, at the most, this could have been the situation.”
How the dispute reached the Supreme Court
Yasmeen, the wife of Sonu, filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act before the jurisdictional Magistrate in Miscellaneous Case No. 85/2022. She sought protection, maintenance of Rs 25,000 a month for herself and her minor daughter, a restraint on alienation of the shared household and other reliefs.
As the case had been pending for more than two years and six months, she moved the Uttarakhand High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 684/2025 seeking its expeditious disposal. The High Court issued notice on June 19, 2025. On July 29, 2025, it recorded Sonu’s absence and allowed service through the consulate and by WhatsApp and e-mail.
On July 2, 2026, the High Court observed that Sonu was avoiding the proceedings while residing in Saudi Arabia and asked counsel for his mother and sisters to obtain instructions on when he would appear. After an affidavit was filed by Yasmeen, non-bailable warrants and proceedings under Section 82 CrPC were directed in Criminal Case No. 154/2023, and the High Court ordered attachment of the property where the appellants lived. The appellants said the police locked the premises and ousted them.
Was the appeal infructuous?
Counsel for the respondents argued that the appeal had become infructuous because the High Court had disposed of the application on October 6, 2026, directing that the pending proceedings be expedited. The Bench rejected the objection, noting that the interim order was still operating and that, by virtue of it, the police had taken possession of the house.
“However, the impugned order though, which was interim in nature is operating and continuing or by virtue of the said order the jurisdictional police seems to have attached the property, taken possession of the property and ousted the appellants from their house, where they were residing. This is highly impermissible.”
The directions
The Court set aside the High Court’s order of July 7, 2026 and directed the attachment to be raised forthwith. It said it remains open to Yasmeen to move the jurisdictional Magistrate to secure her husband’s presence, noting that a wife “craving for justice” had been left without a remedy. The Magistrate was asked to expedite the hearing and secure the husband’s presence, if necessary through a look out notice or other procedure permissible in law.
Why the order matters
The order reaffirms that the proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the DV Act is an absolute bar: a Magistrate may direct a respondent to remove himself from the shared household, but no such order can be passed against a woman. Coercive steps meant to compel an absent husband cannot be turned into an eviction of his female relatives by another route.
It also clarifies what attachment means in such proceedings. Attachment keeps property in the custody of the court so it is not alienated; it does not authorise the police to lock out the occupants. At the same time, the Court kept the wife’s remedies intact and pointed the Magistrate to look out notices and other lawful tools to bring the husband before the court.
Case Title: Shahjahan and Others v. Yasmeen and Others [Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 19298 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 16, 2026
Appearances: Mr. K.K. Tyagi with Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, AOR, for the appellants; Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla with Mr. Nihal Ahmad, AOR, for the respondents