Right Of Residence Of Wife In Shared Household Survives After Cohabitation Ends: Delhi High Court
The High Court held that the right of residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, continues even after separation, and that cessation of cohabitation does not extinguish a woman’s statutory protection from dispossession or eviction from her shared household.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the right of residence under the DV Act extends to women who have, at any point in time, lived in a shared household with their spouse or in-laws, even if the relationship has ceased.
The High Court was hearing two connected revision petitions arising out of cross-complaints under Section 12 of the DV Act, filed by a woman and her in-laws, against concurrent findings of the Mahila Court and the Appellate Court, which had upheld her residence protection.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula, while deciding the matter, observed that “Section 2(f) expressly embraces relationships where the parties ‘have at any point of time lived together’ in a shared household”, while clarifying that “the Act is framed to protect against consequences that often follow separation, including dispossession”. The Bench held that ”to suggest that the right of residence ceases the moment cohabitation ceases would render Sections 2(s) and 17 otiose and defeat the purpose of the Statute.”
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Kajal Chandra, while the respondent was represented by Advocate. Samvedna Verma.
Background
The respondent had married the petitioners’ son in 2010 and started residing with him and her in-laws at their Delhi residence. Due to marital discord, the couple later shifted to a rented accommodation in 2011, after which disputes arose regarding her right to reside in the matrimonial home.
The woman filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking residence protection, alleging she was being unlawfully dispossessed from the property. The mother-in-law filed a counter-complaint claiming harassment and seeking mesne profits for use of the property.
The Mahila Court dismissed the mother-in-law’s complaint and restrained her and her husband from evicting the woman without due process. The appellate court affirmed this decision, which led to the filing of revision petitions before the High Court.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court noted that the DV Act’s protective framework covers not only subsisting domestic relationships but also those where the aggrieved woman had “at any point of time” lived in the shared household. The Court clarified that the legislative intent was to prevent dispossession and provide continued protection against arbitrary eviction, even post-separation.
Referring to Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021), the Court reiterated that a wife’s right of residence does not depend upon ownership or title but arises from the fact of having lived in the property as part of a domestic relationship. The Court rejected the argument that separation extinguishes this right, terming it “more rhetorical flourish than substance.”
The Bench further held that Section 19(1)(d) of the DV Act empowers courts to “to pass residence orders, including to restrain dispossession, to direct a respondent to remove himself, to restrain entry into specified portions, and importantly for present purposes, to restrain alienation or encumbrance of the shared household [Section 19(1)(a) to (d)], and to order suitable alternate accommodation or monetary relief where appropriate [Section 19(1)(f)].”
On the question of several petitions concerning the matter being pending in various courts, the Bench held that “the multiplicity of civil proceedings, including orders passed by a coordinate bench of this Court and the pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court, do not eclipse the DV Court’s power to grant residence protection.”
On the issue of low electricity consumption cited by the petitioners as proof of non-residence, the Court observed that this was not conclusive and that both lower courts had already found evidence confirming the woman’s continued occupation
The High Court also balanced the competing interests of the parties, recognising the woman’s statutory right of residence under Section 17 while protecting the privacy and peace of the elderly petitioners by maintaining separate occupation of different floors of the property.
Conclusion
Dismissing both revision petitions, the Delhi High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It clarified that residence protection did not confer ownership but prevented unlawful dispossession.
Cause Title: Khushwant Kaur v. Gagandeep Sidhu (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9240)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates Kajal Chandra and Hatneimawi
Respondent: Advocate Samvedna Verma, Advocate