PWDV Act | Right to Residence Is Not Right to Possession: Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction of Daughter-in-Law from In-Laws' Self-Acquired Property

“A Woman’s Right to Shelter Must Not Undermine the Elderly’s Right to Peaceful Living in Their Own Home…. Statutory Right of Residence Under Is Not Indefeasible Against Senior Citizens’ Ownership: In a latest Judgement Delhi High Court, speaking through a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, reinforcing that the statutory right to residence under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) does not override the absolute ownership rights of senior citizens, especially where the offer of suitable alternate accommodation has been made in accordance with Section 19(1)(f) of the Act.

The Court held that a daughter-in-law does not have an indefeasible right to continue residing in her in-laws’ self-acquired property when there exists proven acrimony, mental distress, and when the elderly owners have sufficiently safeguarded her residential rights through alternate housing. The appeal filed by the daughter-in-law against a decree of mandatory injunction passed by a Single Judge was accordingly dismissed.

“Right to Residence is Not Right to Ownership or Eternal Occupation”: Court Reiterates Boundaries of Section 17 PWDV Act

The Court began its analysis by posing the pivotal legal question: “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?”

Answering in the affirmative, the Court clarified that the right of residence under Section 17 PWDV Act is neither proprietary nor absolute, and cannot be stretched to mean an irrevocable claim to reside in the same property forever.

The Bench observed:

“The concept of shared household cannot be stretched to mean a right to reside in any particular premises irrespective of ownership or the surrounding circumstances.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja [(2021) 1 SCC 414], the Court emphasized that the right of an aggrieved woman under the PWDV Act is “a statutory protection against destitution, not a claim to permanent possession.”

“Dignity of Senior Citizens in Their Twilight Years Cannot Be Subordinated to Perpetual Co-Residence”: High Court Balances Competing Rights Under PWDV and MWPSC Acts

The respondents, Neelam Arora and her husband—both senior citizens—sought eviction of their daughter-in-law from their self-acquired property located in Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi, on grounds of mental agony, constant altercations, and an uninhabitable domestic atmosphere arising from acrimonious matrimonial disputes.

They offered her alternate accommodation with a rent cap of Rs. 65,000 per month, including payment of all allied expenses such as maintenance, electricity, security deposit, and brokerage, in accordance with Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act.

The Court observed that such an offer satisfied the statutory obligation under the Act and added:

“Senior citizens cannot be condemned to a life of distress and tension within their own home when peaceful separation is possible without rendering the woman shelterless.”

Rejecting the daughter-in-law’s claim that the property was a “shared household” and hence not subject to a civil suit for possession, the Court clarified:

“Civil courts retain jurisdiction to protect ownership and possession rights even where alternate residential rights under special statutes are to be considered. Statutory protection must not morph into a tool of coercion.”

“Eviction Is Permissible Where There Is Offer of Adequate Alternate Accommodation”: Decree on Admission Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC Upheld

The Single Judge had passed a decree of mandatory injunction under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, relying on the admission of ownership by the appellant and the lack of any genuine triable issue. The High Court upheld this reasoning, stating:

“Where the sole defence is a statutory right of residence and ownership stands admitted, the Court is entitled to pass a decree on admission where no genuine dispute as to possession subsists.”

The house in question was a duplex structure with common kitchen, staircases and access, rendering any cohabitation arrangement wholly unworkable. The Court found that twenty-five litigations were pending between the parties and noted:

“Compelling senior citizens to continue co-residing with the daughter-in-law under such conditions would be a travesty of justice.”

“Parity of Dignity, Not Luxury, Is the Test for Alternate Accommodation Under Section 19(1)(f)”: Appellant’s Claim for Equivalent Property Rejected

The appellant argued that a two-bedroom flat in a comparable locality was not adequate and insisted on equivalent luxury and configuration, as the suit property was a four-bedroom duplex.

The Court rejected this argument and held:

“The PWDV Act does not guarantee parity in opulence—it guarantees shelter with dignity. A two-bedroom accommodation with all reasonable facilities suffices where the appellant resides alone.”

The Court further noted that the daughter of the appellant is settled abroad and only visits occasionally, and thus the proposed accommodation met the requirement of space, safety, and dignity.

“Civil Suit Not Barred By Earlier Rejections Under Special Statutes”: High Court Rejects Plea of Forum Shopping

The appellant had also alleged that the in-laws were engaging in forum shopping, having failed to secure relief under the MWPSC Act and before the Magistrate under the PWDV Act. This argument was summarily dismissed, with the Court clarifying:

“The mere failure to obtain relief under one statute does not bar recourse to a competent civil court where ownership rights are in question and alternate protection is ensured.”

It reiterated that the PWDV Act and MWPSC Act must coexist harmoniously, and that statutory protections cannot be exercised to paralyze legitimate civil remedies.

Right to Shelter Is Real, But So Is the Right to Solitude and Ownership

Dismissing the appeal, the Court concluded:

“The law must operate in a manner that preserves both safety and serenity, particularly where familial relationships have irretrievably broken down.”

It further held: “The right of residence is a right of protection, not possession. Equally, the right of senior citizens to live peacefully in their own property is not subordinate to this statutory protection.”

The Court directed that the alternate two-bedroom accommodation must be offered within four weeks, and upon such offer, the appellant shall vacate the suit property within two weeks thereafter.

Date of Decision: October 30, 2025