Introduction
The Delhi High Court recently ruled that a daughter-in-law’s right to residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) cannot automatically override her in-laws’ right to live peacefully in their own home. The decision emphasises that while the law protects women in domestic relationships, this protection does not become a licence to indefinitely stay in a property against the rightful owners’ interests.
Judgment
The judgment was delivered in a case where the senior citizen parents-in-law owned a self-acquired property. The daughter-in-law had lived in the property after her marriage but serious matrimonial discord developed, resulting in over 25 separate proceedings between the parties. The Court, in its decision dated 30 October 2025, held that the parents’ right to dignity, peace and quiet in their own home must also be respected when the family relationship has broken down.
Facts of the Case
The in-laws purchased the property from their own funds and granted residence to their daughter-in-law out of affection after her marriage to their son. Over time the relationship soured and became acrimonious. The in-laws sought eviction of the daughter-in-law by way of a mandatory injunction suit, while also offering her alternate accommodation with monthly rent and all associated expenses covered, in accordance with Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act.
The daughter-in-law resisted, arguing that the property constituted a “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act and that her right of residence under Section 17 was independent of the owners’ title or occupancy. The high court nonetheless dismissed her appeal.
What the Court Says
The Court held that the right of an aggrieved woman under Section 17 of the PWDV Act is a right of protection, not of ownership or indefeasible occupation. It clarified that this right does not automatically override the property rights of the owners when the domestic relationship has disintegrated and co-residence is no longer viable.
The Court further held that offering alternate accommodation with rent and all charges covered satisfied the statutory obligation under Section 19(1)(f). The Court emphasized that the daughter-in-law’s insistence on identical size or luxury of accommodation as the original property was misplaced: the Act guarantees adequacy of residence, not parity of opulence.
In its concluding observations, the Court stated: “The right of residence under the PWDV Act is not absolute or permanent; it is a right of protection and not possession. Equally, the right of senior citizens to live peacefully with dignity in their own property is not subordinate to this statutory protection.”
Implications
This ruling has wide-ranging consequences in family law and domestic violence cases. It reaffirms that while a woman in a domestic relationship has the statutory right to reside in a shared household even without ownership, that right must be balanced against other competing rights. In particular, where senior citizen in-laws have self-acquired property and co-residence has become impractical due to acrimony and multiple litigations, the court may validate eviction, provided alternate accommodation is secured. Legal practitioners must therefore ensure that residential relief under the PWDV Act is not assumed to be perpetual or irrespective of context but must be sensitively balanced with property rights and realistic living arrangements. The decision further signals that courts will not allow statutory protections to be used to indefinitely occupy premises in which peaceful co-existence has become impossible.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
In this decision, the Delhi High Court struck a considered balance between the protective aim of the PWDV Act and the dignity and rights of property-owning senior citizens. It held that a daughter-in-law’s right to reside under the Act does not grant an unconditional right to share unconditionally in her in-laws’ home when the relationship has shattered and peaceful living is no longer feasible. The ruling underscores that rights under domestic violence legislation are important but not absolute, and must be matched by practical, fair arrangements for all parties involved.
