Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
Anil Kshetarpal and
Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.
Manju Arora – Appellant
versus
Neelam Arora and Anr. – Respondents
RFA(OS) 64 of 2025,
CM Appl. 64541 of 2025 and
CM Appl. 64542 of 2025
Decided on 30.10.2025

Counsel For the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms. Shreya Narayan and Ms. Anupama Kaul, Advocates
For the Respondent:Ms. Preeti Singh, Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Ms. Anuradha Anand, Ms. Kirti Dhaiya, Ms. Sakshi Trivedi and Mr. Akshay Chabra, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Right of residence under PWDV Act is not absolute or permanent; it is a right of protection, not possession – Equally, right of senior citizens to live peacefully with dignity in their own property is not subordinate to this statutory protection – Where both sets of rights intersect, Court must strike a delicate balance so that neither party’s dignity nor security is compromised.
(2) Law must operate in a manner that preserves both safety and serenity, particularly in cases where multiple generations coexist under same roof, and familial relationships have irretrievably broken down.

Headnote:
(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 17 and 19(1)(f) – Eviction of Daughter-in-Law from shared household – Respondents are undisputed owners of suit property, having purchased it from their own funds, and Appellant is daughter-in-law – Matrimonial relationship between Appellant and her husband is strained and multiple proceedings under PWDV Act and other statutes are pending between them – In such a situation, continued cohabitation of all family members under one roof, sharing common spaces such as kitchen, living areas, and entry, is wholly impracticable and inconsistent with peaceful and dignified living – Respondents, being senior citizens in the twilight of their lives, cannot reasonably be expected to endure constant bickering and hostility within their own home – Their right to peace and dignity within their self-acquired property must be given due recognition and protection – Right of residence conferred upon an aggrieved woman under PWDV Act is a right of occupation, not ownership, and is not indefeasible – It is a statutory protection against destitution and must be balanced against competing rights of other stakeholders, including senior citizens who are owners in possession of property. (Paras 25, 26, 27 and 28)
(B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 19(1)(f) and 17 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XII Rule 6 – Eviction of Daughter-in-Law from shared household – Order XII Rule 6 of CPC enables Court to pass decree on the basis of admissions – Concept of shared household is to protect destitute women from forcible eviction rendering them without shelter – It is essentially a right of occupation intended to prevent homelessness until adequate alternative arrangements can be secured – It is not a proprietary right conferring indefeasible title; rather, it is a statutory right of residence which, in appropriate cases, may be secured by provision of alternate accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) – In present case, there is no dispute about ownership of Respondents/Plaintiffs – Respondents have offered to make adequate alternative arrangements to allow Appellant to reside peacefully without interference or disturbance and to obviate day-to-day unpleasant situations – There was no bona fide triable issue as to Plaintiffs’ prima facie entitlement to possession – Single Judge rightly exercised powers under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC to decree the matter, thereby securing a pragmatic outcome and ensuring speedy and efficient administration of justice – Respondents have not sought to render Appellant shelterless – They have undertaken to provide her with independent accommodation by paying monthly rent of Rs. 65,000/-, along with electricity, water, maintenance, brokerage, and security deposit – Appellant is already receiving separate maintenance under independent proceedings – While PWDV Act confers a vital and protective right of residence upon an aggrieved woman, it cannot be construed to extinguish or indefinitely suspend right of senior citizens to live without distress in their own home – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 29, 30, 31, 34, 38, 44 and 45)
Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J.—The issue that arises for consideration in the present Appeal is 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 by the In-Laws?

2. The present Appeal assails the correctness of judgment dated 09.09.2025 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Judgment”] passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No. 606/2023, whereby the Respondents/Plaintiffs, who are the parents-in-law and senior citizens, were granted a decree of mandatory injunction directing the Appellant/Defendant to vacate the property bearing No. GB 25, Shivaji Enclave, Tagore Garden, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “suit property”], while providing alternate accommodation to the Appellant in terms of Section 19(1)(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as “PWDV Act”].

Factual Matrix

3. The factual matrix giving rise to the present Appeal is that the Respondents herein, who are the parents-in-law of the Appellant and senior citizens in the evening of their lives, instituted a suit being CS(OS) No. 606/2023 before the learned Single Judge of this Court seeking a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of the property bearing No. GB-25, Shivaji Enclave, Tagore Garden, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”]. The Respondents averred that they were the absolute owners of the suit property, having purchased the same out of their own funds, and that the Appellant, being their daughter-in-law, had been permitted to reside therein purely out of love and affection, without any legal or proprietary rights accruing in her favour.

4. It was further the case of the Respondents that the matrimonial relationship between their son, Mr. Sachin Arora, and the Appellant had become acrimonious, leading to frequent altercations, lodging of police complaints, and initiation of proceedings under the PWDV Act. The Respondents contended that the atmosphere within the house had become toxic and unliveable, affecting their health, peace, and dignity as senior citizens. Despite the acrimony, they submitted before the learned Single Judge that they were willing to make alternate arrangements for the Appellant’s residence in accordance with Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act, so as to ensure that her rights were duly safeguarded even while they could live peacefully in their own home.

5. The Appellant, on the other hand, contested the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit property constituted her “shared household” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act, and as such, she could not be evicted therefrom except in accordance with law. It was further pleaded that the Respondents’ suit was not maintainable without impleading her husband, who, according to her, was a necessary and proper party to the proceedings, as he too resided in the same household. The Appellant further contended that the learned Single Judge could not have granted the relief of eviction without first determining the allegations of domestic violence pending adjudication before the competent Magistrate.

6. The learned Single Judge, after considering the pleadings, documentary record, and binding precedents, framed the central issue as to whether the owners of the property, who are senior citizens, could seek eviction of their daughter-in-law from their self-acquired property while ensuring that her right of residence under the PWDV Act was adequately protected. Relying extensively on Ambika Jain v. Ram Prakash Sharma, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11656 and Madalsa Sood v. Maunicka Makkar, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4183 as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414 the learned Single Judge held that the right of residence under Section 17 of the PWDV Act is not indefeasible, and that a civil court of competent jurisdiction is empow