Read Time: 06 minutes
The court highlighted, “The right of residence is guaranteed under Sub-Section (1) of Section 17 and she cannot be evicted, excluded or thrown out from such a household even in the absence of there being any form of domestic violence i.e. even if she is not an ‘aggrieved person”.
The Delhi High Court, recently, outlined that women in a domestic relationship, including a mother, daughter, sister, wife, mother-in-law, or daughter-in-law, had the right to reside in a shared household, regardless of ownership, title, or beneficial interest.
The court emphasized that this right was protected under Section 17(1) of the Domestic Violence Act (CV Act), ensuring that a woman could not be evicted or excluded, even in the absence of domestic violence. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “even if the contention of Petitioner (husband) is accepted that there was no domestic violence, then too her (woman) right to claim residence is still maintainable”.
The case stemmed from a writ petition filed by a husband seeking to quash the complaint filed under DV Act before the trial court. The petition under the Domestic Violence Act was challenged on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction, as the couple never resided together in Delhi.
Advocate Himanshu Gupta, for the husband, argued that the complaint contained vague, false, and frivolous accusations, with the parents of the husband unnecessarily implicated. The husband, serving as a Squadron Leader in Agra, claimed the complaint was intended to embarrass him and jeopardize his career. The wife, senior to him in rank, sought a Restraint Order to prevent the husband and his family from alienating property she claimed was purchased with her funds.
Advocate Gupta argued that the husband lacked ownership rights over the properties and had financially supported the wife and their daughter. He highlighted his financial constraints, contrasting them with the wife’s alleged assets worth ₹51 lakhs.
The wife, represented by Advocate Akshay Chowdhary, countered that she had been compelled to invest in property under pressure from the husband’s family. She alleged mistreatment after the birth of their daughter and claimed the husband and his family retained property documents and dowry items. The wife denied voluntary separation and maintained that the husband lost interest over time, gradually ceasing communication.
The wife asserted financial dependence due to her limited service tenure, necessitating continued employment. She reiterated allegations of harassment and dowry demands, maintaining that her complaint was justified.
The court, on the issue of territorial jurisdiction, noted that since the wife was temporarily posted in Delhi when she filed the petition in March 2017, and her parental home was in Delhi, the jurisdiction of the court in Delhi was established.
Relying on the Supreme Court case of Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi, it was emphasized that women in domestic relationships had the right to reside in a shared household, irrespective of ownership or title. Even in the absence of domestic violence, a woman could not be evicted or excluded from such a residence.
Therefore the court held that the D.V. proceedings were civil in nature and that it was for the Magistrate to decide the merits of the case. Finding no valid grounds for quashing the complaint, the court dismissed the petition.
For Petitioners: Advocate Himanshu GuptaFor Respondents: Advocates Akshay Chowdhary and Sonali MadaanCase Title: Prabhakar Bhatt v Annu Lamba (2025:DHC:1299)
Please Login or Register
