Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7318
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ
MANJU ARORA – Appellant
Versus
NEELAM ARORA & ANR. – Respondent
RFA(OS) 64/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms. Shreya Narayan, Ms. Anupama Kaul
For the Respondents: Ms. Preeti Singh, Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Ms. Anuradha Anand, Ms. Kirti Dhaiya, Ms. Sakshi Trivedi, Mr. Akshay Chabra
The right of residence under the PWDV Act is not absolute; it can be overridden by balancing rights, especially when senior citizens' dignity is at stake.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2(s), 17 and 19(1)(f) - Right of residence and eviction - Senior citizens’ right to live in dignity - The court affirmed the right of senior citizens to evict their daughter-in-law from their self-acquired property if an alternate accommodation is provided, acknowledging the necessity to balance rights amidst domestic discord. (Paras 1, 34, 42)
(B) Shared household - The distinction between a right of residence and property ownership clarified, emphasizing that such right is subject to reasonable conditions including the availability of suitable alternate accommodation. (Paras 39, 40)
Facts of the case:
The appellants instituted a suit for mandatory injunction to evict the daughter-in-law from their home based on deteriorating familial relations and their right to live peacefully. The respondents (daughter-in-law) contended the home constituted a shared household under the PWDV Act and sought to remain in residence.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the statutory protection under the PWDV Act does not render the right of senior citizens to live with dignity inferior, especially when alternative arrangements are made.
Issues: The key legal principle was whether senior citizens, as homeowners, could evict a daughter-in-law while ensuring her residential rights are protected under the PWDV Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the right to reside under the PWDV Act is not absolute and balancing rights during domestic discord is essential.
Result: The appeal was dismissed with directions for alternate accommodation for the appellant to be arranged by the respondents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. entitlement of senior citizens to live peacefully in their own property. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual matrix establishing ownership of property and issues leading to litigation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. central issue regarding eviction rights while ensuring alternative arrangements for the appellant. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. arguments made regarding the definition and implications of a 'shared household.' (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 , 18 , 20) |
| 5. clarification on property ownership and the nature of residential rights under the pwdv act. (Para 24 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 32) |
| 6. court's reasoned justification for granting alternate accommodation. (Para 31 , 34) |
| 7. balancing rights of senior citizens and the provisions of the pwdv act. (Para 39 , 40) |
| 8. conclusion affirming the judgment and arrangements made for the appellant. (Para 41 , 42) |
1. 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 vi
