Introduction
The Delhi High Court held that a wife who began living in a household immediately after her marriage qualifies that home as a “shared household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
The court said she may continue to reside there even if the husband is later disowned by his parents.
What Facts Did The Court Examine In This Case?
The wife married on 14 November 2010. Immediately after marriage, she began residing in the ground floor of the premises with her husband and his parents. Later, in 2011 the husband and wife moved out to a rented accommodation because of marital differences. The in-laws claimed that they had disowned their son and removed him from all rights in the property. The wife alleged that upon her return home, she found her belongings being shifted out of the matrimonial home by the husband and his parents.
How Did The Court Define “Shared Household” Under The DV Act?
Under Section 2(s) of the Act, a “shared household” is a household where the aggrieved woman lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, either alone or along with the respondent, and it includes such a household whether owned or rented, either jointly by the parties or singly by either of them, or by any member of the joint family of which the respondent is a member. The court emphasised that ownership or title is not a pre-condition.
Why Did The Court Find That The Wife’s Right Stood Even Though The Husband Was Disowned By His Parents?
The court observed that the place where the wife lived immediately after marriage qualified as a shared household because she lived there in a domestic relationship. It rejected the in-laws’ argument that the husband’s disownment destroyed the character of the house as a shared household. The court held that the husband’s move out and his parents’ disownment did not deprive the home of its shared-household nature.
What Legal Provision Gives The Wife The Right To Live There?
Section 17(1) of the DV Act provides that “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman who is in a domestic relationship shall have a right to reside in the shared household.” Section 17(2) forbids eviction or exclusion from the shared household except in accordance with law.
How Did The Court Balance The Interests Of Both Parties?
The court accepted that the husband’s parents could occupy the first floor of the property while the wife lived on the ground floor. It held that this arrangement did not deprive the in-laws of their possession nor leave the wife without shelter. The court described the residence order as a “safeguard rather than a sanction”.
What Is The Broader Importance Of This Ruling?
This decision reinforces that a woman’s right to reside in a shared household does not depend on her husband retaining title to the property or on continued support from his family. It underlines that the key factor is that the woman lived with her husband in that household in a domestic relationship. It also clarifies that an attempt by relatives to disown a husband or exclude the wife does not automatically stop the shared-household protection from applying. On the legislative front, it emphasises that the DV Act is a rights-based law designed to ensure shelter and dignity for women in domestic relationships.
