Delhi High Court Rejects Elderly Woman’s Plea To Return To Matrimonial Home

The Delhi High Court has rejected an 81-year-old woman’s plea, who sought to reside in her matrimonial home in a domestic dispute. The High Court held that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provides protection to women, but if a wife has voluntarily shifted to an alternate accommodation, the Act does not grant her an indefeasible right on the property. Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that a wife insisting on living in a specific accommodation cannot be granted relief if she has left the matrimonial house voluntarily, especially when she has been provided with an alternate accommodation. 

According to media reports, the High Court held that restoration of resident order for a specific property, like in this case, “would disturb the settled possession of the current occupants and convert a protective statute into a rule for re-entry to any past residence and thus would amount to travelling beyond the legislative intent.”

The Case Details

The elderly woman approached the trial court first, but after her plea was rejected, she approached the High Court, seeking a residence order for her re-entry into her matrimonial home. She invoked Section 19 and Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pleading that she should be permitted to live in her matrimonial home. She argued that she lived in that house for more than six decades, and only in April 2023, shifted to her daughter’s residence for a while. The shift was temporary for medical reasons, she said.    

She added that when she returned in July 2023, she was denied entry into her matrimonial home.

The court observed that she left the house voluntarily. There was no evidence that it was due to violence or coercion. She herself stated in her complaint that she left for the treatment.  

Considering relief under Section 19 of the Act, which is about “Residence Orders”, the court emphasised that the relief under this Section is discretionary and equitable in nature.

The court held, “Compelling the restoration in the present case would disturb the settled possession of the current occupants and convert a protective statute into a rule for re-entry to any past residence and thus would amount to travelling beyond the legislative intent.” 

Notably, the other Section, Section 23, lays down provisions regarding an ex-parte order where a Magistrate may pass an interim order, on a prima facie finding that the respondent committed an act of domestic violence and chances are that the respondent may commit it again.

In this case, the court found no act of domestic violence. Further, it noted that the elderly woman has another accommodation of the same standard available to her. Accordingly, it rejected the woman’s petition, adding that relief under Section 19 is of a discretionary and protective nature.