O R D E R

% 08.08.2024

1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.01.2023 (hereafter ‘the impugned order dated 18.01.2023’), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Dwarka Courts, Delhi in CA No.306/2022 titled as Ashok Kumar vs. Bhawna Verma & Ors. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 05.09.2022 (hereafter ‘the impugned order dated 05.09.2022’), passed by the learned Metropolitan (MM), Dwarka Courts, Delhi in MC No.919/2021 titled as Bhawna Verma & Anr.

Vs. Jonu Kumar & Ors.

2. The learned ASJ, by the impugned order dated 18.01.2023, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, who is the father- in- CRL.REV.P. 102/2023 Page 1 of 5 law of Respondent No.2, against the order dated 05.09.2022, whereby the learned Trial Court, had granted the relief of residence to Respondent No.2 in premises bearing No. G-119, Naraina Vihar, Delhi (‘subject premises’), which is stated to be owned exclusively by the petitioner.

3. The impugned orders have come to be passed, holding Respondent No.2 to be an ‘aggrieved person’ in terms of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and the petitioner’s property being the ‘shared household’ as defined under the DV Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute is essentially between Respondent No.2 and the petitioner’s son, who has since moved out of the subject premises and has been residing separately in rented premises at Ramesh Nagar, Delhi.

5. This Court by order dated 06.02.2023, had stayed the operation of the impugned orders to the extent they granted Respondent No.2 the right to reside in the subject premises.

6. Further, this Court by order dated 22.05.2024 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹15,000/- per month to Respondent No.2, over and above the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Court, from the date of filing of the present petition, in lieu of alternate accommodation which Respondent No.2 is entitled to in terms of the provisions of the DV Act.

7. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that in terms of Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, she is entitled to secure same level of alternate accommodation as she had enjoyed in the matrimonial shared household.

8. She submits that the shared household is a two storeyed CRL.REV.P. 102/2023 Page 2 of 5 house and Respondent No.2 is entitled to live in the said house or to have an accommodation of same level.

9. The petitioner, being the sole and absolute owner of the subject premises, argues that the possession of Respondent No.2 during the subsistence of her marriage with the petitioner’s son could be said to be permissive in nature. This by itself cannot entitle Respondent No.2 to claim a right of residence against her father-in-law, who has no legal obligation to maintain his daughter-in-law during the lifetime of her husband.

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja : (2021) 1 SCC 414 while discussing the concept of ‘shared household’ observed that the right to residence under Section 19 of the DV Act is not an indefeasible right, especially when a daughter-in-law is pitted against aged in-laws who are entitled to live peacefully. It was held as under:

“90. Before we close our discussion on Section 2(s), we need to observe that the right to residence under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law. While granting relief both in application under Section 12 of the 2005 Act or in any civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties. The directions issued by the High Court [Ambika Jain v. Ram Prakash Sharma, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11886] in para 56 adequately balance the rights of both the parties.”

11. It cannot be d