In Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora & Anr.<\/em>, a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal<\/strong> and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar<\/strong> dismissed an appeal filed by a woman against an order directing her to vacate her in-laws\u2019 self-acquired house in Delhi\u2019s Shivaji Enclave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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)<\/strong> of the PWDV Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The woman argued that the house was her \u201cshared household\u201d<\/strong><\/em> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After hearing both sides, the Court upheld the Single Judge\u2019s decision, clarifying the true scope of the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe 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\u2019s dignity nor security is compromised.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Bench said that the PWDV Act was never meant to give a lifelong or ownership-like right in the in-laws\u2019 house. Instead, it guarantees a safe place to live<\/em> so that the woman is not left homeless. The judges observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n They further clarified that courts must look for practical solutions where multiple generations live under one roof and relations have broken down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court ordered that the woman be given a two-bedroom flat<\/strong> in a similar locality within four weeks. Her in-laws must pay rent up to \u20b965,000 per month and bear all other costs\u2014security deposit, brokerage, maintenance, water and electricity bills.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Once the alternate accommodation is ready, she must vacate the present house within two weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judges emphasized that the couple\u2019s strained ties and the seniors\u2019 right to peace required separation of living spaces. Continuing together in the same house would only create \u201chostility and deprive the senior citizens of the peace they are entitled to enjoy.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n This decision reaffirms that the right of residence under the PWDV Act is a protective right, not ownership<\/strong>, and that senior citizens\u2019 dignity and peace carry equal legal value<\/strong>. Courts must ensure both safety for women and serenity for elders through balanced, humane solutions like alternate housing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Court\u2019s Directions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
![\"Woman\u2019s](\"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Delhi-High-Court-1-1024x576.webp\" "\\"\\"")
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Explanatory Table of Laws, Sections & Precedents<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,<\/a> 2005 (PWDV Act)<\/strong><\/td> Central legislation giving protection & residence rights to women facing domestic violence.<\/td> Court reaffirmed that this Act gives a protective right to residence<\/strong>, not ownership. The purpose is to prevent homelessness<\/strong>, not to allow indefinite occupation<\/strong> of property belonging to in-laws.<\/td><\/tr> Section 2(s) \u2013 \u201cShared Household\u201d<\/strong><\/td> Defines what premises qualify as shared household<\/a> for residence rights.<\/td> Court held the daughter-in-law\u2019s residence was indeed her shared household, but not an indefeasible right<\/strong> \u2014 can be replaced with alternate accommodation<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr> Section 17 \u2013 Right to Reside in Shared Household<\/strong><\/td> Gives every aggrieved woman the right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of ownership.<\/td> Court clarified this does not mean perpetual residence<\/strong>; it is a right to be housed somewhere safe, not necessarily in the same building.<\/td><\/tr> Section 19(1)(f)<\/strong><\/td> Allows the court to direct the respondent to provide alternate accommodation or pay rent.<\/td> Applied here \u2014 the in-laws agreed to bear rent of \u20b965,000 per month plus utilities for alternate housing, fully satisfying the statutory protection.<\/td><\/tr> Maintenance <\/a>and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWPSC Act)<\/strong><\/td> Protects rights of elderly parents to peaceful life & home.<\/td> Though not the main statute here, the Court recognized senior citizens\u2019 right to dignity and peaceful living<\/strong> as equally protected under law.<\/td><\/tr> Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)<\/strong><\/td> Permits a decree based on admission.<\/td> Used to confirm the admitted ownership<\/strong> of property by in-laws \u2014 hence eviction was proper once alternate housing was ensured.<\/td><\/tr> Constitution of India \u2013 Article 21<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Right to life and personal liberty.<\/td> Invoked to recognize the in-laws\u2019 right to live peacefully and with dignity<\/strong> in their self-acquired property.<\/td><\/tr> Precedent: S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra<\/em> (2007) 3 SCC 169<\/strong><\/td> Landmark case limiting shared household claims.<\/td> Referred to by appellant; Court distinguished it, reaffirming later Supreme Court clarification in Satish Chandra Ahuja<\/em>.<\/td><\/tr> Precedent: Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja<\/em> (2021) 1 SCC 414<\/strong><\/td> Key Supreme Court ruling expanding interpretation of \u201cshared household.\u201d<\/td> Quoted extensively; Bench said it confirms right of occupation \u2260 ownership and allows alternate housing solutions.<\/td><\/tr> Precedent: Ambika Jain v. Ram Prakash Sharma<\/em> (2019 SCC OnLine Del 11656)<\/strong><\/td> Delhi HC precedent balancing residence vs. ownership.<\/td> Followed to hold that senior citizens can evict a daughter-in-law<\/strong> if they provide alternate residence.<\/td><\/tr> Precedent: Madalsa Sood v. Maunicka Makkar<\/em> (2023 SCC OnLine Del 4183)<\/strong><\/td> Delhi HC case on similar facts.<\/td> Cited to emphasize that a civil court can order eviction while protecting woman\u2019s residential rights.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n