SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
Neelam Arora and Another - Appellants
Versus
Manju Arora - Respondent
C.S. (OS) No. 606 of 2023, I.A. Nos. 19275, 19277 of 2023, I.A. Nos. 41710, 44779 of 2024, I.A. Nos. 3112, 8349, 8451 of 2025
Decided On : 09-09-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Preeti Singh, Sunklan Porwal, Aditi Aggarwal, Akshay Chhabra, Anuradha Anand, Sakshi Trivedi, Ayushi Kumari
For the Respondents: Prabhjit Jauhar, Shreya Narayan

The Court ruled that while the daughter-in-law has a right to residence under the PWDV Act, the toxic living condition justifies her eviction to protect the wellbeing of elderly plaintiffs.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 17 and 19(1)(f) - The court addressed the issue of eviction of a daughter-in-law from the shared household amidst allegations of domestic violence, emphasizing the necessity of balancing rights under the PWDV Act with the owner’s rights. (Para 15)

(B) Eviction and domestic rights - The court acknowledged that despite the defendant's right to residence under the PWDV Act, the toxic living situation necessitated the defendant's eviction, affirming that such rights are not indefeasible and should be subject to conditions as per due legal process. (Para 26)

(C) Legal proceedings - The court recognized the existence of multiple litigations between the parties, illustrating the breakdown of familial relations and the inability for coexistence. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs, a senior couple, sought eviction of their daughter-in-law citing years of physical and mental abuse, while the defendant asserted her statutory right to reside in the property as her shared household under the PWDV Act. (Paras 5.1, 5.8)

Findings of Court:
The court found the continuous conflict unlivable and ordered the defendant to vacate while providing alternate accommodation, thus addressing both parties' rights amidst ongoing legal disputes. (Para 39)

Issues: The court addressed the enforceability of the daughter-in-law’s eviction against the backdrop of the PWDV Act and ongoing allegations of domestic violence, alongside the determination of shared household rights. (Para 15)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that while the defendant had rights under the PWDV Act, practical realities necessitated her eviction due to the volatile environment. The need for an alternate arrangement was deemed critical to preserve the dignity of elderly plaintiffs. (Paras 18, 39)

Result: Plaintiff's application under Order XII Rule 6 allowed; the defendant is directed to vacate the suit property by November 7, 2025. (Para 39)

Table of Content
1. application for judgment on admissions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. plaintiffs allege ongoing harassment and abuse. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court notes the escalation of disputes and proceedings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. court finds no basis for joint residence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. eviction ordered with alternative accommodation. (Para 29 , 30)
6. conclusion and final decree issued. (Para 39 , 40)

JUDGMENT :

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

I.A. 44779 of 2024 (Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC)

1. This is an application filed by the Plaintiffs under Order XII Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking judgement on admissions qua the relief of eviction.

2. The suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs, who are the mother-in-law and father-in-law, against the Defendant, who is the daughter-in-law, seeking mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to vacate the property bearing GB 25, Shivaji Enclave, Tagore Garden, New Delhi-110027 (‘suit property’).

3. The present suit was earlier filed before the Ld. Judge, Family Courts, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on the ground that the subject matter of the present suit is a family dispute. However, vide order dated 14.09.2023 in T.P. (C) 132 of 2023, passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the suit was transferred from Family Court, Tis Hazari Courts to this Court, and therefore, maintainability of this suit is no longer in dispute.

4. Plaintiffs are a senior citizen couple aged about 73 and 76 years respectively and are seeking eviction against the Defendant from the suit property, asserting their ownership on the suit property through a perpetual lease deed executed in favour of the Plaintiff No. 2 [Annexed as document ‘Annexure P-1’ filed along with the plaint]. Plaintiffs accuse the Defendant of subjecting them to extreme harassment and cruelty. It is stated that the Plaintiffs find themselves living under constant threat due to the Defendant’s violent and intimidating behaviour.

Brief facts as stated in the plaint

5. Brief facts stated in the plaint are as under:

5.1 It is averred that Plaintiffs, have faced relentless mental and physical abuse since their son, Sachin Arora, married the Defendant on 04.12.1998. It is stated in the plaint that the Plaintiffs and Defendant have stayed together in the suit property since 1998 and are till date residing together in the suit property.

5.2 The Defendant quickly after the marriage began to exhibit abusive behaviour, subjecting the Plaintiffs to extreme mental cruelty, intimidation, and financial exploitation, knowing they were in poor health. On 15.07.2000, the Defendant gave birth to her daughter, however, it is stated that the Defendant neglected her responsibilities as a mother, causing the Plaintiffs to care for the infant frequently, taking on more household duties.

5.3 It is averred that, over the years, the Defendant’s aggression escalated, involving verbal insults, threats of violence, and physical attacks, which included severe incidents like pushing, shoving, and even assault with objects. She often demanded money from the Plaintiffs and showed no regard for their well-being, neglecting household responsibilities while coercing them into compliance with her demands.

5.4 It is averred that the Defendant throughout the marriage has been extremely extortionist towards the Plaintiffs. Initially, Plaintiff No. 2 tried to fulfil all the monetary demands put forth by the Defendant but subsequently the demands increased in an aggravated manner; and when the Plaintiff No. 2 denied fulfilling these aggravated demands, the Defendant started showing her annoyance and aggression like a maniac. It is also stated that, the Defendant’s family members started crashing at the house of the Plaintiffs every now and then, to criminally intimidate them to fulfil their demands.

5.5 After lot of such instances, the first police complaint was filed by Plaintiff No. 1 before the SHO, P.S. Rajouri Garden on 03.10.2020. The Defendant allegedly attempted to murder

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top