Wife’s right to reside in shared household not absolute: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Monday held that a wife’s right to reside in the shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) is not absolute.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that if a wife is gainfully employed, she may be evicted from the shared household (the house where a woman comes to reside after her marriage irrespective of who has ownership of that property) in accordance with the law.

The Court made the observation in one such case where an estranged wife was found to be employed and not so helpless that she needed to continue residing in her marital home.

“No absolute right of residence can be claimed by the petitioner. She herself is an educated woman who has done her MBA and is employed with Accenture Solutions Private Limited. It is not a case where she is helpless or there is any endeavour to leave her on the road by taking away the roof from her head,” the Court observed.

The Court added that a bare reading of Section 19 of the DV Act shows that due process of law may be followed to seek the eviction of the wife from the shared household.

“While Section 19 of the DV Act recognizes the right of a daughter-in-law to continue to live in the shared household, it is subject to two conditions; firstly she cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law and secondly, she may be provided with an alternate accommodation or the rent for such alternate accommodation,” the Court said.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the wife to set aside the orders passed by a magistrate and a sessions judge in her domestic violence case.

The wife had moved into the house of her husband and his family after her marriage. Within a year of marriage, marital discord erupted between the couple. The husband and in-laws left the shared household and started residing at another house. 

The wife filed a domestic violence case alleging that she was subjected to cruelty. She also sought protection of her residence in the shared household. 

Simultaneously, the husband and in-laws filed a civil suit against the wife seeking her eviction from the shared household. 

The magistrate initially allowed her plea and restrained the husband and in-laws from evicting the wife. The magistrate also granted the wife interim maintenance of ₹5,000 per month to be paid by the husband. 

However, on a plea by the father-in-law, the magistrate court recalled its previous order on the ground that the wife had secured gainful employment.

The wife then appealed against the magistrate’s order before the sessions judge, claiming that under the DV Act, she could not be evicted from the shared household.

The sessions court denied the relief of shared household to the wife, prompting her to approach the High Court.

By its October 21 ruling, the High Court dismissed the wife's appeal. In doing so, it also observed that the petitioner's elderly father-in-law, being the owner of the shared household, should not be deprived of his house in his twilight years.

“The learned M.M while maintaining a balance between the rights of the petitioner and the respondents and also being cognizant of the fact that the property is owned by the father-in-law who cannot be made to suffer in his hey days, has directed that alternate Flat in the same colony on rent may be made available to the petitioner," the High Court noted.

It also pointed out that the woman was not left homeless in this case as the magistrate had directed the husband to provide suitable alternate accommodation on rent in the same locality.

The Court, therefore, concluded that there was nothing wrong with the magistrate's order or the sessions court order upholding it, and dismissed the woman's appeal.

Advocates Neeraj Gupta and Prateek Goswami appeared for the wife.

Additional Public Prosecutor Hemant Mehla appeared for the State.

Advocates Anuj Jain and Jai Gaba represented the husband and his family. 

[Read Judgment]