Domestic Violence Act Does Not Compel Reinstatement Into A Residence Abandoned By Choice: Delhi High Court Refuses 81-Year-Old Wife’s Re-Entry Plea
If wife moved without coercion in a suitable alternate accommodation, denial of re-entry not economic abuse
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant a residence order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to an 81-year-old woman seeking re-entry into her matrimonial home at Green Park, where she lived for more than 30 years. The bench said that the statute cannot be used to revive a residential arrangement which was consciously and voluntarily given up.
The Court concluded that although the house in Green Park was historically her matrimonial home but since she lived with her daughter from 13-04-2023 to 08-07-2023 at her house in Safdarjung Enclave, it did not qualify as a “shared household” in presenti once she voluntarily shifted to alternate accommodation owned by her husband, and hence was not rendered roofless.
Consequently, denial of re-entry did not amount to domestic violence in the nature of economic abuse, the bench held.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, thus, observed, “…the premises at Green Park, though previously occupied by the petitioner after marriage, do not qualify as a “shared household” in presenti under Section 2(s) of the DV Act, as the petitioner voluntarily and consciously shifted in April 2023 to an alternate residence at Safdarjung Enclave, where she has since established her settled residence and continues to have shelter. Consequently, the alleged denial of re-entry into the Green Park premises does not, in the facts of the case, constitute domestic violence in the nature of economic abuse, since there was no forcible dispossession, coercion, or rendering of the petitioner roofless. Therefore, in view of the availability of suitable alternate accommodation of the same standard and the discretionary and protective nature of relief under Section 19, the petitioner is not entitled to a residence order directing restoration or re-entry into the Green Park property”.
The bench considered the fact that the petitioner shifted there for the purpose of treatment, voluntarily, though temporary but she herself had repeatedly described her address as the Safdarjung property in her complaint, affidavit and police communications. Photographs on record showed her nameplate affixed outside the Safdarjung house. “…these factors collectively indicate conscious place of residence, not a temporary displacement. The relief under Section 19 is discretionary and equitable. The DV Act balances the rights of the aggrieved woman with the rights of other occupants and owners. Compelling the restoration in the present case would disturb the settled possession of the current occupants and convert a protective statute into a rule for re-entry to any past residence and thus would amount to travelling beyond the legislative intent”, the bench further held.
Advocate Suhail Sehgal appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Sudershani Ray appeared for the respondent.
In the present matter, the petitioner had married respondent No. 1 in 1964 and resided in the Green Park house for decades, and three children (two sons and one daughter) were born out of the wedlock. It was alleged that the respondents don’t intent to give a share in the property to the daughter.
On 13-04-2023, citing medical reasons and proposed surgery, she shifted with her belongings to another property owned by her husband at B-5/204, Safdarjung Enclave, where her daughter was residing.
On 08-07-2023, when she attempted to return to the Green Park property, she alleged that she was denied entry and rendered shelter less.
She thereafter filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act and sought relief under Sections 19 and 23, seeking a residence order directing re-entry into the Green Park property, claiming it to be her “shared household” under Section 2(s).
The Magistrate dismissed the application, holding that since she was residing in alternate accommodation owned by her husband, she could not insist on residence in a particular premises. Pursuant to which, the appellate court affirmed this view.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that her shift was temporary for medical treatment and that she was later compelled to move to Gurugram.
The husband, however, contended that she had voluntarily relocated and established residence at Safdarjung Enclave, and that the proceedings were essentially a property dispute presented as a domestic violence case.
Examining Sections 2(f), 2(s), 17 and 19 of the DV Act, the Court reiterated that while the definition of “shared household” is broad, it is a fact-sensitive determination. The Court also observed that though the expression must receive liberal interpretation, it does not mean that any premises where a wife resided at any point of time becomes a shared household for perpetuity.
Cause Title: X v. Y & Ors [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1066]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Suhail Sehgal, Prashant Drolia, Advocates.
Respondent: Sudershani Ray, Poonam Prajapati, Advocates.