No Right to Residence Under DV Act After Divorce, Rules Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a woman’s right to residence under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, comes to an end once the marriage is dissolved by a valid decree of divorce, unless she can establish that a contrary statutory right persists.

A bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held thus while dealing with a plea filed by a daughter-in-law assailing the order passed by the family court, wherein the suit for possession, damages, use and occupation charges, permanent as well as mandatory injunction was decreed in favour of the respondent mother-in-law.

“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,” court held.

As per Section 17 of the PWDV Act, it confers upon every woman in a domestic relationship the right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of whether she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

However, the court held that the said right is not indefeasible and that it does not create a proprietary interest in the property and is subject to lawful eviction in accordance with due process.

In the case at hand, the appellant daughter-in-law got married to the respondent’s son as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, and a son was born out of the wedlock. The mother-in-law passed away on 14.05.2016, leaving behind two legal heirs, i.e., one daughter and one son, both of whom were brought on record as her legal representatives. The respondent had executed a Will in favour of her daughter, who represented her estate in the present proceedings.

The dispute pertained to the suit property, which the appellant claimed was her matrimonial home since her marriage. She claimed that the suit property was initially purchased in the name of her husband, and was subsequently transferred to his mother, the respondent, not voluntarily but under duress, given the strained relationship between the appellant and the respondent. She further alleged that since the inception of her marriage she had been subjected to acts of cruelty, both mental and physical, at the hands of her husband as well as by her in-laws.

It was the appellant’s case that she had made financial contributions, either personally or through her family, towards the purchase and construction of the suit property in question. In support of the same, she relied upon the testimony of her brother. It was contended that following matrimonial discord, the respondent, in collusion with her son, sought to evict the appellant from the suit property.

It was further contended that despite her objections, and in the absence of any suitable alternative accommodation, she was allegedly dispossessed from the suit property by force. The suit for possession and injunction was, therefore, filed by the respondent to regularise and validate the appellant’s unlawful eviction from her matrimonial home.

The appellant further contended that false allegations were levelled against her to the effect that an unidentified person had been residing with her, which led her husband to institute divorce proceedings; in response, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which, however, came to be dismissed at the threshold on the ground of maintainability, without examination of the merits. Subsequently, a decree of divorce was passed on 19.11.2019, which was affirmed in appeal on 09.08.2023 solely on the ground of limitation.

The respondent, before the family court, contended that she was the absolute owner of the suit property, having acquired title by virtue of a registered Conveyance Deed dated 07.06.2011 executed in her favour. It was her case that she had merely permitted her son and the appellant to reside in the suit property out of natural love and affection, without creating any legal right, title or interest in their favour.

Notably, legal notices were issued by the respondent on 23.07.2013 and 20.12.2013, revoking the permission granted to the appellant to reside in the suit property and calling upon her to vacate the same. Despite the aforesaid notices, the appellant failed to vacate the suit property. The respondent further alleged that the appellant had started negotiating with prospective buyers to create third-party rights in the suit property.

When the matter came before the family court, it held that the respondent had duly established her ownership over the suit property through the registered Conveyance Deed dated 07.06.2011, and that the appellant had failed to substantiate her claim of having contributed financially towards its purchase or construction.

The family court also held that the appellant’s right of residence, if any, was only that of a gratuitous licensee, which stood validly revoked through the legal notices dated 23.07.2013 and 20.12.2013. Taking note of the subsequent dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce dated 19.11.2019, the family court concluded that the appellant had no enforceable right to continue in the premises.

The High Court observed that the statutory protections under Section 17 of the PWDV Act are firmly anchored in the existence of a “domestic relationship.” Section 2(f) of the PWDV Act defines a domestic relationship as a relationship between two persons who live, or have at any point of time lived, together in a shared household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage.

In contrast, court noted that in the present case, the appellant’s marriage to the respondent’s son was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 19.11.2019.

"Although the said decree has been challenged by the Appellant and the matter stands remanded for fresh adjudication, as on date there is no subsisting matrimonial bond or domestic relationship between the parties,” court noted.

In the absence of such a relationship, court said the foundational requirement for invoking Section 17 of the PWDV Act is 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.

Upholding the family court order, court said: “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 Family Court rightly decreed the suit in favour of the Respondents, affirming their title and possession over the suit property, and in rejecting the Appellant’s claim to continued residence or ownership rights. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere.”

Having found no merit in the present appeal, court dismissed the same.

Case Title: K vs S

Order Date: 21 August 2025

Bench: Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said.