Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Del) 359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
Romy Mehra and Another - Appellants
Versus
Gautam Mehra and Another - Respondents
C.S. (OS) No. 19 of 2024, I.A. Nos. 9122, 41474, 49093-49094 of 2024
Decided On : 09-09-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Madhavi Diwan, Natasha Garg, Anubhav Dubey
For the Respondents: Malavika Rajkotia, Mayank Grover, Aashna Talwar, Prashant Mendiratta, Poonam Mendiratta, Neha Jain

The court upheld the right to reside in a shared household under the PWDV Act, validating interim injunctions for eviction when necessary to prevent harm, while ensuring alternative accommodation is provided to the displaced party.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Right to residence in shared household - Plaintiffs, aged senior citizens, sought an interim injunction for defendant no. 2 to vacate the suit property, a residence shared during their son’s marriage - Defendant no. 2's alleged hostile conduct caused mental distress to plaintiffs - Court recognized suit property as a shared household and ruled an interim mandatory injunction is permissible, balancing competing rights, directing eviction while ensuring alternate accommodation - Defendant no. 2 rejected the accommodation offer, leading the court to establish that coexistence is untenable - Although owner, plaintiffs are obliged to provide alternative housing as per PWDV Act provisions. Findings reinforced by previous Supreme Court judgments. (Paras 21-32, 42-54)

(B) Domestic Violence Act - Eviction from shared household - A woman’s right to reside in shared household protected under PWDV Act, must be respected and she can only be evicted following due legal process established therein - Interim orders should not prejudge trial outcomes, but in cases of irreparable harm, courts can order interim relief upon proving competing rights. (Paras 21-24)

Table of Content
1. interim injunction applications filed (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. plaintiffs' case against defendants established (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. marital discord's impact on familial residence (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. documentation of disputes and police involvement (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. judgment on residential rights under pwdv act (Para 21 , 22)
6. civil court's powers in eviction matters (Para 23 , 24)
7. court's final order on interim injunction and residence (Para 46 , 47 , 61)

JUDGMENT :

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

I.A. 546/2024, I.A. 6586/2024 and I.A No. 41474/2024

1. I.A. 546/2024 is an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’], initially filed by the plaintiffs with the suit seeking an ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, directing the defendants to vacate the property bearing House No. A-20, Ansal Villas, Satbari, Chhatarpur, New Delhi-110074 [‘suit property’] along with their belongings and restraining the defendant no. 2 from entering the suit property.

2. I.A. 6586/2024 is an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking direction to defendant no. 2 to immediately vacate the suit property and consequently decide I.A. 546/2024.

3. I.A. 41474/2024 is an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking early hearing of the captioned suit and I.A. 546/2024.

CASE SET UP BY THE PLAINTIFFS

4. Ms. Madhavi Diwan, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs, has set up the plaintiffs’ case as under: -

4.1. The suit property is an exclusive and self-acquired property of the plaintiff no. 1, acquired vide registered sale deed dated 24.01.2005. The plaintiff no. 1 [aged 68 years] and plaintiff no. 2 [aged 70 years] are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the defendant no. 2 respectively. The defendant no. 1 is the only son of the plaintiffs.

4.2. The defendant no. 1 was married to the defendant No. 2 according to Hindu rites on 03.03.2009. Out of the plaintiffs love and affection; the defendant nos. 1 and 2 were residing with the plaintiffs in the suit property. The defendants have two [2] minor children [a daughter and a son], born out of the wedlock on 17.07.2010 and 11.08.2016, respectively.

4.3. The defendants have made the lives of the plaintiffs a living hell in the suit property. The continuous disruptive and hostile conduct of the defendants have made it impossible for the plaintiffs to reside peacefully in their own house i.e., the suit property.

4.4. Owing to marital discord between the defendants, the defendant no. 1 on 08.05.2023 has initiated divorce proceedings [HMA No. 991/2023] against the defendant no. 2, which is pending adjudication before the Family Court, Saket District Courts, New Delhi [‘Family Court’]. The defendant no. 1 has also filed an application in the said divorce proceedings for seeking a relief of issuance of directions to defendant no. 2 to shift to an alternate accommodation.

4.5. It is alleged that in retaliation, the defendant no. 2 has filed various false and frivolous complaints, including FIR No. 592/2023 dated 13.12.2023 under Section 498-A/406/354/506/509/377/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station – Maidan Garhi, South Delhi, against the plaintiffs, defendant no. 1, plaintiffs’ daughter and their son-in-law, causing harassment and repeated police inquires.

4.6. The defendant no. 2 had also filed a false and frivolous petition [being Ct. Case No. 3596/2023] under the Protection against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ‘PWDV Act’], before the Mahila Court, Saket, New Delhi [‘Mahila Court’] and obtained an ex-parte interim order dated 22.12.2023 in her favour. By virtue of said interim order, the respondents therein have been restrained from dispossessing the defendant no. 2 from the suit property.

4.7. The misconduct of the defendant no. 2 not only includes the filing of false and frivolous criminal complaints but also includes constant verbal abuse, acts of physical violence engaging in disruptive behaviour inside th