NEW DELHI<\/em>: The Delhi High Court<\/a><\/strong>, through Justice Ravinder Dudeja<\/strong>, dismissed a petition filed by an elderly wife seeking re-entry into her earlier matrimonial home<\/strong> at Green Park under the Domestic Violence Act.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment makes it clear that the law cannot be stretched to reopen old residential arrangements once a spouse has voluntarily shifted and settled elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case arose from a long marriage in which the wife had lived in the Green Park<\/strong> house for several decades<\/strong>. In 2023, she moved out and started living at another property<\/strong> in Safdarjung Enclave<\/strong>, which also belongs to her husband. Later, when she tried to return to the Green Park house and was not allowed to enter, she approached the court alleging domestic violence and economic abuse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The trial court and the appellate court had both refused her request, and the matter finally reached the High Court. The High Court noted that the dispute was-<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cPredominantly arise out of an inter se property dispute between the parties rather than a case warranting interference under the protective framework of DV Act.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that the wife was not without shelter and had been staying in the Safdarjung Enclave property owned by the husband. The Court recorded that the husband had \u201cno objection to the petitioner residing in the said Safdarjung property,\u201d<\/em><\/strong> which meant she was not rendered homeless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court clearly stated that the DV Act is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cProtective and remedial and not to confer an indefeasible right upon the aggrieved person to insist upon residence in a particular property when suitable alternate accommodation of the same standard is available and offered.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n According to the Court, the law is meant to prevent a woman<\/strong> from being thrown out on the street, not to give her an absolute choice<\/strong> of any house she prefers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A key factor weighed by the Court was that the wife herself had shown Safdarjung Enclave as her address in complaints and affidavits. The Court noted that her shifting was not forced and that her conduct showed a conscious decision to relocate. The judgment records that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA shared household must be a subsisting sharehood in presenti, not one surviving merely in historical memory.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court also relied on settled legal principles that a wife:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cCannot insist on residing in the suit property alone when the husband had offered a suitable alternative arrangement for her.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It emphasised that where a spouse has \u201cvoluntarily establishes a separate residence or has access to alternate accommodation,\u201d<\/em><\/strong> restoration to a previous house is not automatic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Dudeja further held that compelling re-entry in such cases would \u201cdisturb the settled possession of the current occupants and convert a protective statute into a rule for re-entry to any past residence.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> The Court cautioned that such an approach would go beyond the intent of the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the allegation of domestic violence, the Court was clear that denial of entry in these facts did not amount to abuse<\/strong>. It recorded that there was \u201cno forcible dispossession, coercion, or rendering of the petitioner roofless,\u201d<\/em><\/strong> and therefore no domestic violence was made out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the High Court refused to interfere using its inherent powers, stating that there was \u201cno perversity, infirmity or jurisdictional error\u201d<\/em><\/strong> in the earlier orders. It concluded that granting relief would \u201ceffectively convert a property dispute into a domestic violence proceeding, which is impermissible.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n With these findings, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing that the Domestic Violence Act<\/a> cannot be misused as a tool to revive old residence claims or to fight property battles<\/strong> under the guise of protection law<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law and Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Enables an aggrieved woman to file a complaint alleging domestic violence.<\/td> The wife filed her complaint alleging emotional, mental and economic abuse after being denied re-entry into the Green Park house.<\/td><\/tr> Section 19, DV Act<\/strong><\/td> Empowers the court to pass residence orders, including protection from dispossession or directing alternate accommodation.<\/td> The wife sought a residence order to re-enter the Green Park property. The Court held that since she had alternate suitable accommodation, restoration was not automatic.<\/td><\/tr> Section 23, DV Act<\/strong><\/td> Allows the Magistrate to grant interim and ex parte reliefs.<\/td> Invoked along with Section 19 for interim protection, but the trial court refused relief and this was upheld.<\/td><\/tr> Section 29, DV Act<\/strong><\/td> Provides right of appeal against Magistrate\u2019s orders.<\/td> The wife challenged the Magistrate\u2019s order before the Sessions Court, which dismissed her appeal.<\/td><\/tr> Section 2(f), DV Act<\/strong><\/td> Defines domestic relationship.<\/td> Considered to examine whether a subsisting domestic relationship existed at Green Park at the time relief was sought.<\/td><\/tr> Section 2(s), DV Act<\/strong><\/td> Refers to the concept of shared household.<\/td> The Court examined whether Green Park remained a shared household in present circumstances and held that past residence alone was not sufficient.<\/td><\/tr> Section 17, DV Act<\/strong><\/td> Grants right to reside in a shared household.<\/td> The Court clarified that this right is protective and does not give an absolute choice of property when alternate residence is available.<\/td><\/tr> Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Grants inherent powers to High Court to prevent abuse of process and correct grave errors.<\/td> The High Court declined interference, holding there was no perversity or jurisdictional error in the lower court orders.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n