Section 17 PWDV Act | Senior Citizen’s Peace Trumps Daughter-in-Law’s Residence Right Where Alternative Accommodation Provided: Delhi High Court

“No statute compels senior citizen parents to endure an environment injurious to their health merely because the daughter-in-law asserts a right of residence.”— In a seminal ruling, the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, upheld an interim mandatory injunction directing a daughter-in-law to vacate her matrimonial home, prioritizing the health and peace of her elderly in-laws over her statutory right of residence, provided adequate alternate accommodation is furnished.

The Toxic Domestic Environment

The case involved a bitter domestic dispute within a high-net-worth family residing in a farmhouse at Ansal Villas, Satbari. The in-laws (Respondents 1 & 2) were senior citizens, with the father-in-law suffering from advanced Parkinson’s disease. They alleged that their daughter-in-law (Appellant) had created a "toxic" atmosphere characterized by aggression, breaking objects, and loud arguments, which was deteriorating the father-in-law's health.

The husband (Respondent No. 3) had already moved out. The in-laws filed a civil suit seeking the eviction of the daughter-in-law. The Single Judge, noting the acrimony and medical reports, directed the Appellant to vacate the premises but ordered the in-laws to pay a staggering ₹2.5 Lakhs per month for her alternate accommodation.

Shared Household vs. Senior Citizen Rights

The Appellant challenged the eviction, arguing that under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act), she had a statutory right to reside in the "shared household" which could not be curtailed at an interim stage. She relied on the Supreme Court's Satish Chander Ahuja judgment.

The Balancing Act

The Division Bench rejected the Appellant's contention, relying on the recent precedent Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora. The Court held that Section 17 is a "protective right of occupation," not an indefeasible right of ownership.

The Bench observed: "The right under Section 17... cannot be interpreted to curtail an owner’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his or her property, particularly where uncontroverted material demonstrates that such residence is aggravating the senior citizen’s medical condition."

Adequacy of Alternate Accommodation

A pivotal factor in the Court's decision was the "fair and proportionate" interim arrangement. The in-laws were directed to:

Pay ₹2,50,000/- per month as rent.

Bear brokerage, security deposit, and six months' advance rent.

Pay electricity, water, and maintenance charges.

Allow the Appellant to choose an apartment in a premium complex (Central Park-II, Gurugram).

The Court noted that this arrangement ensured the Appellant and her children would not be rendered homeless but would maintain a comparable lifestyle, while simultaneously allowing the elderly parents to live with dignity.

Welfare of Children

Addressing the argument regarding the minor children's welfare, the Court noted that the children studied in a school in Gurugram. Moving to the alternate accommodation in Gurugram would actually align with their schooling needs and insulate them from the daily domestic hostility.

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the eviction order. It held that the interim mandatory injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the senior citizens. The Appellant was granted time until January 1, 2026, to comply, subject to the in-laws fulfilling their financial obligations.

Date of Decision: 08.12.2025