The Delhi High Court held that a daughter-in-law’s right to residence in a shared house is only a protective right—not ownership—and must be balanced with senior citizens’ right to live peacefully in their own home. The Court directed her eviction while ordering in-laws to provide a two-bedroom rented flat at their cost.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling on the conflict between a woman’s right to residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) and her in-laws’ right to peaceful living.
In Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora & Anr., a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an appeal filed by a woman against an order directing her to vacate her in-laws’ self-acquired house in Delhi’s Shivaji Enclave.
Her parents-in-law, both senior citizens, had complained that living with her had become impossible because of constant quarrels and over two-dozen litigations between family members. They offered to rent another house for her under Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act.
The woman argued that the house was her “shared household” and that she could not be evicted. She said the alternative flat offered was too small and that her statutory right under the PWDV Act was being violated.
After hearing both sides, the Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, clarifying the true scope of the law.
“The larger principle that emerges is that the right of residence under the PWDV Act is not absolute or permanent; it is a right of protection, not possession. Equally, the right of senior citizens to live peacefully with dignity in their own property is not subordinate to this statutory protection. Where both sets of rights intersect, the Court must strike a delicate balance so that neither party’s dignity nor security is compromised.”
The Bench said that the PWDV Act was never meant to give a lifelong or ownership-like right in the in-laws’ house. Instead, it guarantees a safe place to live so that the woman is not left homeless. The judges observed:
“The PWDV Act does not guarantee parity of luxury, but adequacy of residence. The right of residence is meant to ensure safety and stability, not to perpetuate occupation of a large family home at the cost of the lawful owners.”
They further clarified that courts must look for practical solutions where multiple generations live under one roof and relations have broken down.
“The law must operate in a manner that preserves both safety and serenity, particularly in cases where multiple generations coexist under the same roof, and familial relationships have irretrievably broken down.”
Court’s Directions
The Court ordered that the woman be given a two-bedroom flat in a similar locality within four weeks. Her in-laws must pay rent up to ₹65,000 per month and bear all other costs—security deposit, brokerage, maintenance, water and electricity bills.
Once the alternate accommodation is ready, she must vacate the present house within two weeks.
The judges emphasized that the couple’s strained ties and the seniors’ right to peace required separation of living spaces. Continuing together in the same house would only create “hostility and deprive the senior citizens of the peace they are entitled to enjoy.”
Key Legal Takeaway
This decision reaffirms that the right of residence under the PWDV Act is a protective right, not ownership, and that senior citizens’ dignity and peace carry equal legal value. Courts must ensure both safety for women and serenity for elders through balanced, humane solutions like alternate housing.
Explanatory Table of Laws, Sections & Precedents
| Law / Case / Section | Purpose / Context in Judgment | How Court Interpreted It |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) | Central legislation giving protection & residence rights to women facing domestic violence. | Court reaffirmed that this Act gives a protective right to residence, not ownership. The purpose is to prevent homelessness, not to allow indefinite occupation of property belonging to in-laws. |
| Section 2(s) – “Shared Household” | Defines what premises qualify as shared household for residence rights. | Court held the daughter-in-law’s residence was indeed her shared household, but not an indefeasible right — can be replaced with alternate accommodation. |
| Section 17 – Right to Reside in Shared Household | Gives every aggrieved woman the right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of ownership. | Court clarified this does not mean perpetual residence; it is a right to be housed somewhere safe, not necessarily in the same building. |
| Section 19(1)(f) | Allows the court to direct the respondent to provide alternate accommodation or pay rent. | Applied here — the in-laws agreed to bear rent of ₹65,000 per month plus utilities for alternate housing, fully satisfying the statutory protection. |
| Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWPSC Act) | Protects rights of elderly parents to peaceful life & home. | Though not the main statute here, the Court recognized senior citizens’ right to dignity and peaceful living as equally protected under law. |
| Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) | Permits a decree based on admission. | Used to confirm the admitted ownership of property by in-laws — hence eviction was proper once alternate housing was ensured. |
| Constitution of India – Article 21 | Right to life and personal liberty. | Invoked to recognize the in-laws’ right to live peacefully and with dignity in their self-acquired property. |
| Precedent: S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169 | Landmark case limiting shared household claims. | Referred to by appellant; Court distinguished it, reaffirming later Supreme Court clarification in Satish Chandra Ahuja. |
| Precedent: Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414 | Key Supreme Court ruling expanding interpretation of “shared household.” | Quoted extensively; Bench said it confirms right of occupation ≠ ownership and allows alternate housing solutions. |
| Precedent: Ambika Jain v. Ram Prakash Sharma (2019 SCC OnLine Del 11656) | Delhi HC precedent balancing residence vs. ownership. | Followed to hold that senior citizens can evict a daughter-in-law if they provide alternate residence. |
| Precedent: Madalsa Sood v. Maunicka Makkar (2023 SCC OnLine Del 4183) | Delhi HC case on similar facts. | Cited to emphasize that a civil court can order eviction while protecting woman’s residential rights. |
Case Summary
| Field | Information |
| Case Title | Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora & Another |
| Case Number | RFA (OS) 64/2025 with CM Appl. 64541/2025 & 64542/2025 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi at New Delhi |
| Judgment Reserved On | 14 October 2025 |
| Judgment Pronounced On | 30 October 2025 |
| Appellant | Manju Arora (Daughter-in-Law) |
| Respondents | Neelam Arora & Another (Parents-in-Law / Senior Citizens) |
| Coram / Bench | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar |
| Appellant’s Counsel | Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms. Shreya Narayan, and Ms. Anupama Kaul |
| Respondents’ Counsel | Ms. Preeti Singh, Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Ms. Anuradha Anand, Ms. Kirti Dhaiya, Ms. Sakshi Trivedi, and Mr. Akshay Chabra |
| Lower-Court Order Challenged | Judgment dated 09 September 2025 in CS (OS) 606/2023 by a Single Judge directing eviction with alternate housing under PWDV Act |
| Final Outcome | Appeal dismissed — Woman to vacate in-laws’ house; in-laws to provide 2-BHK flat at ₹65,000 rent + charges |
| Citation (Neutral) | 2025 DHC — RFA(OS) 64/2025 (30 Oct 2025) |
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advise.