The Court also held that this right must always be balanced with the rights of senior-citizen parents-in-law to live peacefully in their own property<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Division Bench<\/strong> of Justice Anil Kshetarpal <\/strong>and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar<\/strong> noted that the Supreme Court<\/strong> has repeatedly said that the residence right under the PWDV Act is not absolute, and courts must protect senior citizens from mental stress, health issues, and lack of peaceful enjoyment of their home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench relied on its earlier ruling in Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora & Anr<\/em><\/strong>.<\/em>, where it held that a daughter-in-law cannot insist on living indefinitely in her in-laws\u2019 home when such residence harms their dignity, health, and peaceful life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reading the reports submitted to the Single Judge\u2014especially the counsellor\u2019s report and medical documentation\u2014the High Court found that the atmosphere inside the home had become \u201ctoxic<\/strong>\u201d, and the continued presence of the daughter-in-law was worsening the medical condition of the senior-citizen mother-in-law, who suffers from Parkinson\u2019s disease<\/strong>. It held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe right of residence cannot be interpreted to curtail an owner’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his or her property, particularly where uncontroverted material demonstrates that such residence is aggravating the senior citizen\u2019s medical condition.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Bench upheld the earlier order in which the Single Judge had directed the daughter-in-law to vacate the in-laws\u2019 home<\/strong> within two months and shift to alternate rented accommodation. However, this alternate residence was ordered to be fully arranged and funded by her in-laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court found this arrangement fair, saying that it protects the woman and children financially and residentially while protecting the senior citizens from further harm. It said the Single Judge \u201ccannot be faulted<\/strong>\u201d for concluding that the daughter-in-law\u2019s continued stay caused \u201cmanifest hardship<\/strong>\u201d to the in-laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that the Single Judge had taken a balanced approach by ensuring that the woman was offered a good alternative residence\u2014one comparable to her lifestyle\u2014along with the husband\u2019s continuing monthly maintenance and the in-laws\u2019 responsibility to pay rent, advance amounts, brokerage, security deposit, and even the children\u2019s school fees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It said that the arrangement \u201cstrikes the correct balance<\/strong>\u201d because the woman\u2019s needs are protected without forcing senior citizens to continue suffering emotionally, mentally, and medically in their own home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench also made an important remark:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe law does not require that senior citizen parents should continue to suffer a corrosive domestic environment merely because the daughter-in-law asserts a residence right under the PWDV Act, especially when adequate and dignified alternative arrangements are offered and funded by the parents-in-law themselves.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also made it clear that this is not a case where the woman is being made \u201chelpless<\/strong>\u201d or \u201chomeless<\/strong>\u201d. It pointed out that the Single Judge had fully protected her by ensuring a good alternative house at the same standard, with all costs to be paid by the in-laws. The Court also reviewed the maintenance the husband was already paying and the educational expenses being covered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The appeal by the woman (Appellant) was therefore dismissed. The High Court held that the interim order was necessary, fair, and proportionate to prevent further deterioration in the household environment and the health of the senior-citizen mother-in-law<\/strong>. It also said that, during an appeal against an interim order, the question is not whether another view is possible, but whether the view taken is reasonable. Here, the Court found no illegality or perversity<\/strong> in the Single Judge\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench then reproduced and upheld all the operative directions of the Single Judge, including the full list of obligations on the in-laws to provide alternate accommodation, maintain the children\u2019s education, cover all essential expenses, pay rent, and ensure shifting support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These directions were reiterated exactly as originally written:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court finally dismissed the appeal and clarified that the Single Judge will decide the main suit independently based on evidence<\/strong> and without being influenced by observations made in this interim order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Mentioned<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"Shared](\"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/WhatsApp-Image-2025-10-06-at-15.46.01_561ad081-1024x576.jpg\" "\\"\\"")
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> What It Means (Simple Explanation)<\/strong><\/td> How It Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 17 \u2013 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act)<\/strong><\/td> Gives a woman the right to live in the shared household<\/em>. It is a protection right, not ownership.<\/td> Court held this right cannot override senior citizens\u2019 right<\/strong> to peaceful enjoyment of their property, especially when the atmosphere has become toxic.<\/td><\/tr> Section 19(1)(f) \u2013 PWDV Act<\/strong><\/td> Allows courts to order alternate accommodation<\/em> for a woman instead of allowing her to live in the disputed premises.<\/td> Used to justify shifting the daughter-in-law to a fully funded rented flat, balancing everyone’s rights.<\/td><\/tr> Section 19(1)(e) \u2013 PWDV Act<\/strong><\/td> Prevents alienation\/transfer of property to protect a woman\u2019s residential security.<\/td> Court ordered that in-laws cannot create third-party rights<\/strong> in the property till the case ends.<\/td><\/tr> Sections 498A\/406\/354\/506\/509\/377\/34 \u2013 Indian Penal Code (IPC)<\/strong><\/td> Criminal provisions used in the FIR filed by the wife alleging cruelty, dowry demands, sexual offences, and criminal acts.<\/td> Mentioned as part of the background of matrimonial disputes; not directly adjudicated here.<\/td><\/tr> Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 \u2013 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)<\/strong><\/td> Allows courts to give temporary injunctions (stop someone or restrain someone) to prevent harm.<\/td> Single Judge used this to issue an interim mandatory injunction<\/strong> directing the woman to vacate.<\/td><\/tr> Section 13(1)(i) & (ia) \u2013 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Grounds for divorce \u2014 adultery and cruelty.<\/td> Husband had already filed for divorce under these grounds in a separate proceeding.<\/td><\/tr> Section 26 \u2013 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Allows court to decide custody, maintenance, and education of children.<\/td> Both parties filed applications regarding custody & visitation.<\/td><\/tr> Section 151 \u2013 CPC<\/strong><\/td> Court\u2019s inherent powers to pass orders necessary for justice.<\/td> Husband used this for interim applications in custody\/visitation matters.<\/td><\/tr> Section 7 \u2013 Family Courts Act, 1984<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Gives Family Courts power to hear matrimonial and custody matters.<\/td> Basis for husband\u2019s interim custody and visitation applications.<\/td><\/tr> Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990)<\/strong><\/td> Landmark SC judgment on when interim mandatory injunctions can be granted \u2014 only when extremely necessary.<\/td> Appellant cited it to argue eviction cannot be ordered at interim stage. Court disagreed.<\/td><\/tr> Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021)<\/strong><\/td> Major ruling on \u201cshared household\u201d. Court held daughter-in-law can claim residence in certain cases.<\/td> Appellant relied on it, but Bench said it cannot override senior citizens\u2019 rights<\/strong> in this situation.<\/td><\/tr> Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora (2025)<\/strong><\/td> Delhi HC Division Bench ruling that daughter-in-law cannot live indefinitely in in-laws\u2019 self-owned house.<\/td> Bench relied heavily on this to uphold eviction + alternative accommodation.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n