The Delhi High Court has held that a wife’s right to reside in her shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) cannot be defeated merely because her husband has been disowned by his parents. Once a woman begins residing in a house with her husband and in-laws after marriage, that residence qualifies as a “shared household,” irrespective of ownership or title.

Justice Sanjeev Narula, while dismissing petitions filed by both the daughter-in-law and her in-laws, affirmed that the wife’s residence in the matrimonial home immediately after marriage brings the property within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the DV Act. The Court emphasized that Section 17(1) grants a woman the right to reside in such a household and Section 17(2) prohibits her eviction except by due process of law.

“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,” Justice Narula observed.

The couple married in November 2010 and initially lived with the husband’s parents. In November 2011, due to marital discord, they shifted to a rented accommodation. The in-laws claimed that before the move, they had disowned their son from all movable and immovable properties. The wife, however, contended that she was forcibly dispossessed from her matrimonial home and her belongings were moved without consent.

She filed a complaint under the DV Act asserting her right to reside in the shared household (the ground floor of the family property). The mother-in-law also filed a complaint under the same Act seeking protection orders against the daughter-in-law and her relatives.

The trial court held that the mother-in-law was not an “aggrieved person” under the DV Act but granted her limited protection over the first floor of the property. Simultaneously, the daughter-in-law’s right of residence on the ground floor was recognised, and she could not be directed to vacate or pay occupation charges. Both parties filed appeals, which the sessions court dismissed through a common order.

Upholding the lower courts’ decisions, Justice Narula rejected the in-laws’ contention that the wife’s residence was mala fide or merely symbolic, calling it a “selective and unconvincing reliance on electricity bills.” The Court held that the trial and appellate courts had correctly balanced the competing interests of both sides.

“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,” the Court said.

Emphasising proportionality and fairness, the High Court concluded that the premises qualified as a shared household, and the wife’s right of residence was fully protected under the DV Act. The residence orders restraining eviction or alienation were held to be lawful and within jurisdiction.

Case Title: Khushwant Kaur v. Smt. Gagandeep Sidhu & Other Connected Matters