The Delhi High Court on Thursday held that a woman’s right of residence in a shared household is “not absolute or permanent” and must be balanced with the rights of senior citizens/ in-laws to live peacefully [Manju Arora v Neelam Arora & Anr]. .A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidynathan Shankar observed that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (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, the Court underscored. “The 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’s dignity nor security is compromised,” the Court ruled. It explained that 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. “The 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,” the Court added. .The Bench rendered these findings while rejecting an appeal filed by a woman challenging the September 2025 order of a single-judge bench that had directed her to vacate her in-laws’ house. The case stemmed from a prolonged marital dispute between the woman and her husband, with over two dozen litigations pending between family members. Her in-laws claimed the atmosphere at home had become “toxic and unliveable” and sought a decree directing her eviction while offering to bear the rent and associated costs of an alternative residence.The woman argued that the property was her shared household and that her right to stay there could not be taken away. She contended that the alternative accommodation offered was inadequate and that her eviction violated her statutory rights under the PWDV Act..The Court rejected these arguments and held that her in-laws’ offer of alternative accommodation fully safeguarded her right of residence under Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act. It further directed that she be provided a two-bedroom flat in a comparable locality within four weeks, with all rent and utility payments made by the in-laws..Advocates Prabhjit Jauhar, Shreya Narayan and Anupama Kaul appeared for the woman. The in-laws were represented by advocates Preeti Singh, Sunklan Porwal, Anuradha Anand, Kirti Dhaiya, Sakshi Trivedi and Akshay Chabra. .[Read Judgment]
