Woman Has No Right To Residence Under Domestic Violence Act After Divorce Unless Contrary Statutory Right Shown: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a woman has no right to residence under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act after the marriage is dissolved by way of a divorce unless a contrary statutory right is shown to exist.

“Once the marriage stands dissolved by a valid decree of divorce, the domestic relationship comes to an end. Consequently, the substratum upon which the right of residence is founded no longer survives, unless a contrary statutory right is shown to persist,” a division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said.

Section 17 of DV Act provides that every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

The Court dismissed a daughter in law's appeal against a family court order decreeing in favour of the mother in law her suit for possession, use and permanent injunction.

The mother in law passed away in 2016, leaving behind two legal heirs- a daughter and son. The deceased executed a Will in favour of her daughter who represented her estate in the proceedings.

Before the family court, the daughter in law claimed that she had been residing at the suit property since her marriage in 1999 and continued to reside there as it constituted her matrimonial home.

She claimed that the suit property was initially purchased in the name of her husband and was subsequently transferred to his mother, not voluntarily but under duress. She also said that she had made financial contributions towards the purchase and construction of the property in question.

She contended that following matrimonial discord, the mother in law, collusion with her son, sought to evict her from the suit property and despite her objections and in the absence of any suitable alternative accommodation, she was allegedly dispossessed from the suit property by force.

Taking note of the subsequent dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce dated November 19, 2019, the Family Court concluded that the daughter in law had no enforceable right to continue in the premises.

Rejecting her appeal, the Court observed that although the divorce decree was challenged by the daughter in law and the matter stood remanded for fresh adjudication, as on date there was no subsisting matrimonial bond or domestic relationship between the parties.

It added that in the absence of a domestic relationship, the foundational requirement for invoking Section 17 of the PWDV Act was lacking.

“Accordingly, the Appellant's assertion of a continuing right of residence under the Act is materially weakened, subject of course to the outcome of her pending appeal,” it said.

Furthermore, the Bench concluded that the daughter in law's claim of contribution cannot translate into an enforceable proprietary right.

It added that even while decreeing eviction, the daughter in law was granted six months' time to vacate, underscoring that the process was neither arbitrary nor inequitable.

“In light of the foregoing discussion on facts as well as the applicable legal principles, this Court finds no infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by the Family Court. The findings are well- reasoned, and based on a fair appraisal of the evidence,” the Court said.

Title: A v. B

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1005

Click Here To Read Order