DV Act Doesn’t Guarantee Re-entry to Past Residence: Delhi HC

• Delhi HC rules DV Act does not grant indefeasible right to insist on residing in a specific property
• 81-year-old woman’s petition for restoration of matrimonial home possession dismissed
• Court says compelling restoration would disturb settled possession of current occupants
• Relief under Section 19 is discretionary when suitable alternate accommodation is available

GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 12th Feb: The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, does not grant an aggrieved woman an indefeasible right to insist on residing in a property she had previously left. The ruling applies particularly when suitable alternate accommodation is available.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja dismissed a petition filed by an 81-year-old woman seeking restoration of possession of her matrimonial home in Green Park, Delhi.

The court held that directing restoration of possession would disturb the settled possession of current occupants. It warned against stretching the law beyond its intended purpose.

“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,” the court observed.

The petitioner had challenged trial court orders rejecting her plea under Sections 19 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act. She sought re-entry into the matrimonial home, claiming she had lived there for nearly six decades. She said she had only temporarily moved to her daughter’s residence in April 2023 for medical treatment. When she attempted to return in July 2023, she alleged she was denied entry.

The court, however, found that her departure was not compelled by violence or coercion. It also noted that in her own complaint, she had stated the shift was for treatment purposes.

Justice Dudeja emphasised that relief under Section 19 of the DV Act is discretionary and equitable. “The DV Act balances the rights of the aggrieved woman with the rights of other occupants and owners,” he said.

The court noted that the petitioner had voluntarily shifted to another property owned by her husband and was not left without a roof. Since suitable alternate accommodation of the same standard was available, she was not entitled to a residence order for the Green Park property.

The judgment draws a clear distinction between protecting women forced out of their homes and granting re-entry rights to those who left voluntarily with access to adequate alternate housing. The ruling is likely to serve as a reference in future cases involving contested residence orders under the DV Act.