Delhi HC Upholds Eviction of Daughter-in-Law While Ensuring Alternate Accommodation

In a landmark pronouncement reaffirming the delicate balance between the rights of women under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) and the rights of senior citizens to live peacefully in their own homes, the Delhi High Court in Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora & Anr. (RFA (OS) 64/2025, judgment dated 30 October 2025) upheld the eviction of a daughter-in-law from her in-laws’ self-acquired property while simultaneously protecting her statutory right of residence by directing the provision of alternate accommodation.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that the right of residence under the PWDV Act is not an indefeasible or proprietary right but a statutory right of protection that can be balanced against the constitutional and statutory rights of senior citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution and the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (MWPSC Act).

The Court’s judgment underscores a progressive and practical approach—protecting women from destitution while recognising that senior citizens cannot be compelled to coexist indefinitely in an atmosphere of hostility within their self-acquired property.

Factual Background

The respondents, Neelam Arora and her husband, senior citizens and parents-in-law of the appellant, instituted a civil suit before the Delhi High Court seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing their daughter-in-law, Manju Arora, to vacate their property—GB-25, Shivaji Enclave, Tagore Garden, New Delhi.

They asserted ownership of the property, having purchased it from their own funds, and contended that the appellant was permitted to reside there purely out of affection and family consideration. However, the marital relationship between their son, Sachin Arora, and the appellant had deteriorated irreparably, giving rise to multiple litigations and police complaints. The respondents alleged that the environment in their home had become toxic, adversely affecting their health and peace of mind.

Despite these disputes, the parents-in-law expressed willingness to provide suitable alternate accommodation for the appellant in compliance with Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act, which empowers courts to direct the respondent to secure alternate residence for the aggrieved woman.

The daughter-in-law, on the other hand, argued that the property constituted her “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the PWDV Act and that her right to reside there under Section 17 was absolute during the subsistence of her marriage. She further alleged that her eviction could not be sought through a civil suit and that her husband was a necessary party to the proceedings.

The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court decreed the suit, directing the appellant to vacate the premises while ordering her in-laws to provide a three-bedroom alternate accommodation of equivalent standing with rent up to ₹65,000 per month, including payment of all allied charges.

Issue Before the Court

The Division Bench framed the central issue as:

• Whether senior citizens are entitled to live peacefully with dignity in their own property, particularly when adequate steps have been taken to protect the daughter-in-law under the PWDV Act?

This led to subsidiary questions:

• Does a daughter-in-law have an indefeasible right to reside in her in-laws’ self-acquired property under the PWDV Act?
• How should courts reconcile the rights of senior citizens and the statutory protection afforded to women under the PWDV Act?

Appellant’s Arguments

The appellant (daughter-in-law) contended that:

• The suit property qualified as a shared household, and therefore, she could not be evicted so long as her marital relationship subsisted.
• The decree of eviction on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was erroneous since she never admitted to unlawful possession.
• The respondents had engaged in forum shopping, having failed to secure similar relief under both the MWPSC Act and the PWDV Act before lower forums.
• She had resided in the property for over 24 years, establishing it as her matrimonial home, and eviction would amount to destitution.
• The offer of alternate accommodation could not substitute her statutory right to reside in the shared household.
• A rental cap of ₹65,000 per month was inadequate, considering that a comparable four-bedroom duplex in the same area would cost nearly ₹1,30,000 per month.
• She further urged that partial segregation of the house—for instance, use of the basement or first floor—could have ensured coexistence without eviction.

Respondents’ Arguments

The parents-in-law argued that:

• They were absolute owners of the property, and their daughter-in-law had only been permitted to reside out of goodwill.
• Due to continuous quarrels and multiple litigations—around 25 cases pending between family members—cohabitation had become unbearable.
• The property consisted of a single dwelling unit with a common kitchen and access, making independent living impossible.
• They had voluntarily offered alternate accommodation to ensure compliance with Section 19(1)(f) PWDV Act, including rent, brokerage, maintenance, and utilities.
• The right of residence under Section 17 of the PWDV Act is a right of occupation, not ownership, and must yield to the dignity and rights of aged owners.
• The concept of “shared household” cannot be stretched to create permanent tenancy or ownership-like rights for the daughter-in-law.
• They also submitted that the appellant’s maintenance was already being paid separately and that the offer of alternate accommodation fulfilled both legal and equitable obligations.

Court’s Observations

1. Ownership Not Disputed; No Bona Fide Triable Issue

The Court noted that the ownership of the respondents was undisputed, and the only defence raised pertained to the appellant’s right of residence. Therefore, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the Single Judge was justified in decreeing the suit based on admissions, as no genuine triable issue existed regarding title or possession.

2. Right of Residence Is Not Absolute

Relying on Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414, the Bench reiterated that the right of residence under Section 17 PWDV Act is not an indefeasible or proprietary right. It is intended to prevent homelessness, not to perpetuate occupation of another’s self-acquired property indefinitely.

The Court clarified that:

“The right of residence is a right of protection, not possession. It must be balanced with the right of senior citizens to live peacefully with dignity in their own home.”

3. Senior Citizens’ Right to Peace and Dignity

Emphasising Article 21 of the Constitution and the MWPSC Act, the Bench held that senior citizens have a constitutional and statutory right to live peacefully in their self-acquired property. Forcing them to cohabit with a hostile daughter-in-law would violate this right.

4. Adequate Safeguard Through Alternate Accommodation

The Court approved the Single Judge’s direction for alternate accommodation—now slightly modified from a three-bedroom to a two-bedroom flat—with rent capped at ₹65,000 per month. The respondents were directed to bear all ancillary costs, including maintenance, brokerage, security deposit, and utility bills.

The Bench held that the law ensures adequacy of residence, not parity in luxury:

“The PWDV Act does not guarantee parity of luxury, but adequacy of residence. The right is meant to ensure safety and stability, not to perpetuate occupation of a large family home at the cost of the lawful owners.”

5. No Violation of Statutory Protection

The Bench found that the appellant’s statutory rights remained fully protected. Since she would receive separate maintenance and independent accommodation, the allegation that she would be rendered homeless was unfounded.

The judgment explicitly stated that the respondents’ conduct—offering alternate accommodation and bearing all expenses—demonstrated fairness and compliance with both the letter and spirit of the PWDV Act.

Judgment and Directions

Upholding the Single Judge’s findings, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and issued the following operative directions:

1. Eviction Upheld: The appellant (daughter-in-law) must vacate the suit property within two weeks after alternate accommodation is provided.
2. Alternate Residence: The respondents must identify and offer a two-bedroom flat in a comparable locality within four weeks.
3. Expenses: The respondents shall bear rent up to ₹65,000 per month and directly pay the security deposit, maintenance, brokerage, water and electricity charges to the landlord or service providers.
4. Balance of Rights: The Court reaffirmed that both the right of residence under the PWDV Act and the right of senior citizens to peaceful living must coexist harmoniously.

The Bench concluded:

“While the PWDV Act confers a vital and protective right of residence upon an aggrieved woman, it cannot be construed to extinguish or indefinitely suspend the right of senior citizens to live without distress in their own home.”

Conclusion

Delhi High Court’s judgment in Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora & Anr. marks a significant milestone in family and property jurisprudence. It affirms that while women’s protection laws must be interpreted liberally to prevent destitution, they cannot be wielded to dispossess senior citizens of peace and autonomy within their self-acquired homes.

By upholding eviction yet mandating secure alternate accommodation, the Court achieved a measured equilibrium between compassion and justice—ensuring neither the protective shield of the PWDV Act nor the dignity of ageing parents is compromised.

The verdict reinforces that law must operate as a balance of coexistence, not a weapon of conflict, echoing the Court’s concluding words:

“The law must operate in a manner that preserves both safety and serenity, particularly where multiple generations coexist under the same roof.”

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams