Woman's Right To Reside In Shared Household Can't Act As Sword To Create Proprietary Rights: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a woman's right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act cannot act as a sword to create proprietary rights.

“…the protection under Section 17(1) of the Act, 2005 acts as a shield against unlawful dispossession of a woman, not as a sword to create proprietary rights,” a division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said.

It added that such right of residence is not an absolute right conferred upon a woman, rather is limited to the extent of circumstances expressed under Section 17(2)- creating a restriction in the interest or right.

As per Section 17(2), the aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it, save in accordance with the procedure established by law.

The Court said that by virtue of the embargo, the legislative intent behind adding such limitation is to make it manifestly clear that a woman seeking protection on the pretext of a shared household is restricted from claiming a right of residence as and when the said right has been terminated by way of procedure established under law.

“To put it in other words, the intention behind this provision is purely to grant the right of residence as a protective measure, so as to exclude the possibility of a woman being removed from her matrimonial home at the whims and fancies of her in-laws,” the Court said.

The Bench was dealing with a daughter in law's plea challenging a decree granting possession of the suit property in favour of the mother in law. The daughter in law was directed to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the property to the mother in law within three months.

The trial court had held that since the probate granted in favour of the mother in law was a judgement in rem, and since no challenge was made against such order of probate, the mother in law duly proved her ownership of the suit property.

It was also observed by the Trial Court that the daughter in law had no right to reside in the suit property, particularly when the licence issued in her favour stood terminated in November 2011.

Disposing of the plea, the Bench said that the daughter in law was not residing in the suit property for past 13 years since 2012 and had out of her own accord, ceased to reside at her matrimonial home- the suit property, despite her right of residence being recognized.

The Court concluded that the daughter in law was not entitled to claim right of residence for two reasons- one, it was upon her own volition that she stopped residing at the suit property and that her right of residence stood curtailed as soon as the mother in law was considered to be the rightful owner.

While the Bench upheld the impugned order, it modified the decree to the extent of exempting the daughter in law to pay the mesne profit.

“While the decree of eviction and possession is maintained, the decree awarding mesne profits is set aside,” the Court said.

Title: X v. Y

Click here to read order