Delhi HC: Woman’s Right Can’t Disturb In-Laws’ Peace

Delhi High Court: Woman’s Right to Residence Under PWDV Act Cannot Disturb In-Laws’ Peace

Court stresses balance between women’s protection and family harmony

Judgment clarifies scope of “shared household” in domestic violence cases

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 31, 2025: In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that while a woman has the right to reside in her matrimonial home under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), this right cannot be exercised in a way that disrupts the peace and rights of her in-laws. The judgment provides much-needed clarity on the interpretation of “shared household” and the extent of residence rights granted to women under the Act.

The case highlights the delicate balance courts must strike between protecting women from domestic violence and safeguarding the rights of other family members, particularly elderly in-laws.

Background of the Case

A married woman approached the courts seeking enforcement of her right to live in her matrimonial home under the PWDV Act.
The property in question was owned by her in-laws, not her husband.
The in-laws argued that her continued residence was causing them distress and infringing on their right to peaceful enjoyment of their property.
The trial court and appellate court had differing views, leading to the matter being escalated to the Delhi High Court.

Court’s Observations

The Delhi High Court made several important observations:

Right of Residence is Not Absolute: The Court clarified that while Section 17 of the PWDV Act grants women the right to reside in a shared household, this right is not unlimited.
Shared Household Defined Narrowly: The Court reiterated that a “shared household” refers to a home where the woman lives or has lived with her husband. If the property is exclusively owned by in-laws, it cannot automatically be treated as a shared household.
Balance of Rights: The Court emphasized that the rights of in-laws, especially elderly parents, must also be respected. A woman’s right of residence cannot override their right to live peacefully in their own home.
Alternative Accommodation: The Court suggested that the husband has a duty to provide suitable alternative accommodation if the matrimonial home belongs solely to his parents.

Legal Context

The PWDV Act, 2005 was enacted to protect women from domestic violence and ensure their right to secure housing. Section 17 of the Act provides that every woman in a domestic relationship has the right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of ownership.

However, the interpretation of “shared household” has been contentious. In S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007), the Supreme Court held that a wife cannot claim residence in a property owned exclusively by her in-laws. Later judgments, however, expanded the scope of protection, leading to conflicting interpretations.

The Delhi High Court’s ruling aligns with the Batra precedent, reinforcing that in-laws’ property cannot automatically be claimed as a shared household.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has wide-ranging implications:

For Women:
- Women retain strong protection under the PWDV Act but must recognize that their right of residence is not absolute.
- They may seek alternative accommodation from their husbands if in-laws’ property is not available.
For In-Laws:
- Elderly parents and in-laws gain legal reassurance that their property rights and peace will not be compromised.
- They can approach courts if their rights are infringed upon.
For Courts:
- The judgment provides clearer guidance for lower courts handling domestic violence and property disputes.
- It reduces ambiguity in interpreting “shared household.”

Expert Reactions

Legal experts have welcomed the judgment as a balanced approach. While it protects women from being rendered homeless, it also safeguards the rights of elderly in-laws who often face harassment in property disputes.

Women’s rights activists, however, caution that the ruling should not be misused to deny genuine victims of domestic violence their rightful protection. They stress the importance of ensuring that husbands fulfil their duty to provide alternative housing.

Broader Social Impact

Inheritance and property disputes are among the most common causes of family litigation in India. This ruling is expected to:

Reduce unnecessary conflicts between daughters-in-law and in-laws.
Encourage husbands to take greater responsibility in providing housing.
Strengthen the legal framework by balancing women’s rights with family harmony.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling is a landmark clarification on the scope of residence rights under the PWDV Act. It underscores that while women must be protected from domestic violence and homelessness, their rights cannot come at the expense of their in-laws’ peace and property rights.

By striking this balance, the Court has reinforced both women’s dignity and family harmony, setting a precedent that will guide future cases across India.