Introduction:
The Delhi High Court recently dealt with a significant issue concerning the right of residence of a woman under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The case involved a long-standing property dispute between a daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law, raising questions on the scope of a woman’s right to reside in a shared household and whether such a right can be extended to create proprietary interests in property. The matter was decided by a Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar. The case was titled X v. Y for reference purposes. The petitioner, the daughter-in-law, approached the High Court challenging the decree of eviction granted in favour of her mother-in-law in relation to the suit property. The trial court had earlier held that since the probate granted in favour of the mother-in-law was a judgment in rem and had not been challenged, she had duly proved her ownership of the property. Based on this, the trial court directed the daughter-in-law to vacate the premises. Dissatisfied with this order, the daughter-in-law moved to the High Court, claiming her continued right to reside in the property as a “shared household” under Section 17 of the DV Act.
The dispute essentially revolved around the interpretation of Section 17 of the DV Act, which protects the right of residence of an aggrieved woman in a shared household. The daughter-in-law contended that her right of residence was absolute and could not be extinguished merely because her mother-in-law became the rightful owner of the property. On the other hand, the mother-in-law maintained that the daughter-in-law had voluntarily left the property more than a decade ago and that the right of residence could not be stretched to create ownership rights or to override the lawful rights of the property owner.
The High Court carefully analyzed the legislative intent behind Section 17 of the DV Act and made an important distinction between using the provision as a shield to protect against unlawful dispossession and misusing it as a sword to assert proprietary rights. This ruling reaffirms the protective nature of the legislation while preventing its misuse in cases where women attempt to claim ownership-like entitlements over properties lawfully belonging to others.
Arguments of the Daughter-in-Law:
The daughter-in-law, as the petitioner before the Delhi High Court, argued extensively that her right to reside in the matrimonial home was an enforceable legal right under the DV Act. She emphasized that Section 17(1) of the Act categorically provides that every woman in a domestic relationship has the right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of her ownership or title in the property. According to her, the very object of the provision was to ensure that women are not rendered homeless or left without shelter merely because they do not have a proprietary interest in the property.
She contended that her mother-in-law’s ownership of the property, recognized through the grant of probate, could not automatically extinguish her right of residence. She relied on judicial precedents where courts had recognized the continuing right of women to live in the shared household as long as the domestic relationship subsisted. The petitioner further submitted that the interpretation of Section 17 as a protective measure must be broad and purposive, given the beneficial nature of the legislation. She argued that the law was enacted to protect women against arbitrary eviction by in-laws and that restricting her right of residence would defeat the very spirit of the Act.
Additionally, the petitioner contended that the trial court erred in ignoring her legal entitlement under the DV Act while focusing solely on the ownership rights of the mother-in-law. She insisted that her right of residence was independent of ownership and could not be curtailed merely by termination of a license or recognition of probate in favour of the respondent. The petitioner also pointed out that her right to shelter, as recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution, must be read harmoniously with Section 17 of the DV Act. Hence, she prayed that the decree of eviction be set aside and that she be permitted to continue residing in the property as her shared household.
Arguments of the Mother-in-Law:
On the other hand, the mother-in-law strongly defended her ownership of the property. She highlighted that the probate granted in her favour was a judgment in rem, meaning it had a binding effect on all persons and conclusively established her ownership. Since the daughter-in-law had not challenged the probate proceedings at any stage, she could not now question her ownership.
The respondent argued that the right of residence under Section 17 of the DV Act was not absolute but subject to the limitations imposed under Section 17(2). She pointed out that the provision clearly states that a woman cannot be evicted except in accordance with the procedure established by law. In her case, since the decree of possession was lawfully obtained through court proceedings, the eviction of the petitioner could not be said to be unlawful.
Furthermore, the respondent emphasized that the petitioner had voluntarily ceased to reside in the property since 2012, more than a decade ago. Therefore, she could not now claim a right of residence after having abandoned the matrimonial home out of her own volition. She contended that the petitioner was misusing the protective provision of the DV Act as a weapon to resist lawful possession orders. The respondent also highlighted that the license granted to the petitioner to live in the property was terminated back in 2011, which further curtailed her right to remain in possession.
The mother-in-law further argued that if the petitioner’s interpretation was accepted, it would lead to absurd consequences where in-laws would be permanently deprived of their ownership rights over their self-acquired or inherited properties. She maintained that the DV Act was never intended to create proprietary interests for women but only to provide protection against arbitrary eviction. Therefore, she prayed that the decree of possession be upheld.
Judgment of the Court:
After considering the rival contentions, the Delhi High Court delivered a reasoned judgment that balanced the legislative intent of the DV Act with the rights of property owners. The Court first analyzed the scope of Section 17, emphasizing that it provides a right of residence to women as a protective measure. However, the Court clarified that such a right cannot be stretched to the extent of creating ownership or proprietary rights.
The Division Bench observed that the protection under Section 17(1) acts as a shield against unlawful dispossession, not as a sword to create property rights. It explained that the legislative intent behind the provision was to ensure that women are not arbitrarily evicted from their matrimonial homes by their in-laws. At the same time, the legislature introduced a limitation under Section 17(2), which explicitly states that eviction may take place in accordance with the procedure established by law.
The Court held that the daughter-in-law’s right of residence was subject to this limitation. Since the mother-in-law had duly established her ownership through a probate decree, which was a judgment in rem, and since the petitioner had not challenged it, the ownership of the respondent could not be questioned. Consequently, the decree of possession obtained by the mother-in-law was valid and lawful.
The Bench also noted that the daughter-in-law had ceased to reside in the property since 2012, thereby abandoning her right of residence. The Court emphasized that a right of residence cannot be asserted after more than a decade of voluntarily leaving the property. Thus, the petitioner could not now claim the benefit of Section 17 to re-enter the property against the wishes of the lawful owner.
However, while upholding the decree of possession, the High Court modified the trial court’s order to the extent of setting aside the award of mesne profits. It observed that since the petitioner had already vacated the property and was not in possession for the past 13 years, she could not be directed to pay mesne profits. Therefore, while the decree of eviction was maintained, the financial liability imposed on the petitioner was removed.
The Court concluded that the daughter-in-law was not entitled to claim the right of residence for two reasons: first, she had voluntarily ceased to reside in the property; and second, her right of residence stood curtailed as soon as the mother-in-law was declared the rightful owner.