Domestic Violence Act Can’t Be Construed To Extinguish Right Of Senior Citizens To Live Without Distress In Their Own Home: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) cannot be construed to extinguish right of senior citizens to live without distress in their own home.

The Court held thus in an Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Single Judge by which the parents-in-law and senior citizens were granted a decree of mandatory injunction.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “While the PWDV Act confers a vital and protective right of residence upon an aggrieved woman, it cannot be construed to extinguish or indefinitely suspend the right of senior citizens to live without distress in their own home. The law must operate in a manner that preserves both safety and serenity, particularly in cases where multiple generations coexist under the same roof, and familial relationships have irretrievably broken down.”

The issue before the Bench was whether senior citizens are entitled to live peacefully with dignity in their own property, particularly when adequate steps have been taken to protect the Daughter-in-Law by the In-Laws.

Advocate Prabhjit Jauhar represented the Appellant, while Advocate Preeti Singh represented the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The Respondents were the parents-in-law of the Appellant and senior citizens. They had instituted a suit before the High Court’s Single Judge, seeking a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of a property. They averred that they were the absolute owners of the suit property having purchased the same out of their own funds, and that the Appellant, being their daughter-in-law, had been permitted to reside therein purely out of love and affection, without any legal or proprietary rights accruing in her favour. It was claimed that the matrimonial relationship between the Respondents’ son and the Appellant had become acrimonious, leading to frequent altercations, lodging of police complaints, and initiation of proceedings under the PWDV Act. It was contended that the atmosphere within the house had become toxic and unliveable, affecting their health, peace, and dignity as senior citizens. Despite the acrimony, the Respondents submitted before the Single Judge that they are willing to make alternate arrangements for the Appellant’s residence in accordance with Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act, so as to ensure that her rights were duly safeguarded even while they could live peacefully in their own home.

The Appellant, on the other hand, contested the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit property constituted her “shared household” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act, and as such, she could not be evicted therefrom except in accordance with law. The Single Judge held that the right of residence under Section 17 of the PWDV Act is not indefeasible, and that a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction is empowered to pass a decree of eviction or exclusion against an aggrieved woman, provided that suitable alternate accommodation is ensured in terms of Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act. The Judge further decreed the suit and directed the Appellant to vacate the suit property, while simultaneously directing the Respondents to provide her with a three-bedroom alternate accommodation on a plot of equal size, with rent up to Rs. 65,000/- per month and associated costs. This was under challenge before the Division Bench.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “The matrimonial relationship between the Appellant and her husband is admittedly strained, and multiple proceedings under the PWDV Act and other statutes are pending between them. … It is not in dispute that there exists severe matrimonial discord between the husband and the Appellant, resulting in multiplicity of proceedings, approximately twenty-five (25) cases, between various members of the family.”

The Court added that in such a situation, continued cohabitation of all family members under one roof, sharing common spaces such as kitchen, living areas, and entry, is wholly impracticable and inconsistent with peaceful and dignified living.

“The Respondents, being senior citizens in the twilight of their lives, cannot reasonably be expected to endure constant bickering and hostility within their own home. Their right to peace and dignity within their self-acquired property must be given due recognition and protection”, it remarked.

The Court noted that the concept of shared household is to protect destitute women from forcible eviction rendering them without shelter and it is essentially a right of occupation intended to prevent homelessness until adequate alternative arrangements can be secured.

“It is not a proprietary right conferring indefeasible title; rather, it is a statutory right of residence which, in appropriate cases, may be secured by the provision of alternate accommodation under Section 19(1)(f)”, it further observed.

The Court was of the view that the Single Judge rightly exercised powers under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) to decree the matter, thereby securing a pragmatic outcome and ensuring the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

“The Appellant’s contention that the alternate accommodation must be identical in size and configuration to the existing premises is misconceived. The PWDV Act does not guarantee parity of luxury, but adequacy of residence. 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”, it also said.

Conclusion

The Court noted that the overall protection afforded to the Appellant is more than adequate, her statutory right of residence stands fully preserved, and her grievance of being rendered homeless is unfounded.

“… 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. Where both sets of rights intersect, the Court must strike a delicate balance so that neither party’s dignity nor security is compromised”, it emphasised.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the Single Judge has correctly appreciated the legal position and the equities between the parties. It directed that the Respondents shall bear the rent up to Rs. 65,000/- per month and that the alternate accommodation shall be identified and offered to the Appellant within four weeks.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the impugned Judgment.

Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9456-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Prabhjit Jauhar, Shreya Narayan, and Anupama Kaul.

Respondent: Advocates Preeti Singh, Sunklan Porwal, Anuradha Anand, Kirti Dhaiya, Sakshi Trivedi, and Akshay Chabra.

Click here to read/download the Judgment