The Delhi High Court has held that a woman’s right of residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) is not absolute or permanent, and must be interpreted in harmony with the right of senior citizens and in-laws to live peacefully in their own property.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, while adjudicating Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora & Anr., underscored that the PWDV Act guarantees adequacy of residence, not parity of luxury.

The Court observed that this statutory protection aims to secure the safety and stability of an aggrieved woman, not to perpetuate her occupation of a family residence at the cost of lawful owners.

Court’s Key Observations

The Bench made it clear that the right of residence under the PWDV Act is a right of protection, not of possession. It added that senior citizens’ right to live peacefully and with dignity cannot be made subordinate to this statutory right.

“The right of residence under the PWDV Act is not absolute or permanent. It must operate to protect the woman’s dignity without extinguishing the in-laws’ right to live peacefully in their home,”

the Court remarked.

The judges further emphasized that where multiple generations reside together and familial ties have broken down, courts must strike a delicate balance between protection and peace.

Case Background

The appeal arose from a long-standing marital dispute between the woman and her husband, with multiple litigations pending among family members. Her in-laws approached the Court seeking her eviction, alleging that the domestic atmosphere had turned toxic and unliveable. They offered to provide her a two-bedroom alternative accommodation at their cost.

The woman contended that the house was her shared household and claimed that eviction would violate her statutory protection under the PWDV Act. She argued that the proposed residence was inadequate.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court held that the in-laws’ offer satisfied Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act, which allows for the arrangement of alternative accommodation to secure the woman’s right of residence.

The Court directed that a two-bedroom flat in a comparable locality be provided to her within four weeks, with rent and utility charges fully borne by the in-laws.

• Case Title: Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora & Anr.
• Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
• Court: Delhi High Court
• Date of Judgment: October 30, 2025
• Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Prabhjit Jauhar, Shreya Narayan, and Anupama Kaul
• Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Preeti Singh, Sunklan Porwal, Anuradha Anand, Kirti Dhaiya, Sakshi Trivedi, and Akshay Chabra

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…