{"id":357903,"date":"2025-08-26T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-08-26T10:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=357903"},"modified":"2025-08-28T10:01:23","modified_gmt":"2025-08-28T04:31:23","slug":"no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Right to Residence under Domestic Violence Act ends upon divorce, unless a contrary statutory right persists : Delhi High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> An appeal was filed under Section 19<\/a> of the Family Courts Act, 1984<\/a> assailing the correctness of order dated 22-3-2024 (‘Impugned Order’) passed by the Family Court, whereby the suit for possession, damages, use and occupation charges, permanent as well as mandatory injunction was passed in favour of the respondent, whereby the Family Court had stated that the appellant’s right if any in the suit property was that of a gratuitous licensee, whose right of residence stood revoked through the notices. The Family Court after taking note of the divorce decree observed that the appellant had no enforceable right to remain on the premises and the appellant was granted six months to vacate the property.<\/p>\n

A Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal*<\/span> and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar JJ., observed that once the marriage stood dissolved by a valid decree of divorce, the domestic relationship came to an end. Thus, the substratum upon which the right of residence is founded under Section 17 DV Act, no longer survives, unless a contrary statutory right is shown to persist. The Court finding no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Family Court dismissed the appeal.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The present Appeal arose from a family dispute involving matrimonial and property rights. The appellant was the daughter-in-law of the original plaintiff (respondent before the Family Court), who is now deceased. The appellant had married the respondent’s son on 13-4-1999 as per Hindu rites, and they were blessed with a son on 7-2-2000. The dispute concerned the property at D-2\/217, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi (‘suit property’), which the appellant claimed was her matrimonial home since her marriage.<\/p>\n

The appellant had submitted that the property was initially purchased in her husband’s name and later transferred to the respondent under duress due to strained relations, and that she had (personally or through her family) contributed financially to the construction of suit property. This was supported by her brother’s testimony who claimed having contributed Rs 60,000 in 1998. The Appellant also alleged cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws, and claimed ancestral contributions to the construction of the property.<\/p>\n

The appellant had further submitted that false allegations were levelled against her about an unidentified person residing with her, which led her husband to institute divorce proceedings in response of which she had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a> (‘DV Act’), which was dismissed on ground of maintainability, without examination of the merits. During the pendency of the civil suit, the respondent passed away and was substituted by her legal heirs (daughter). A divorce decree was passed on 19-11-2019 and upheld in appeal solely on ground of limitation but later set aside by the Supreme Court and remanded for fresh hearing, which was listed for 9-10-2025.<\/p>\n

Notices revoking permission to stay were issued on 23-7-2013 and 20-12-2013, but the appellant failed to vacate and allegedly tried to sell or create third-party rights in the property. The respondent had thus instituted a suit seeking possession of the suit property, damages for unauthorized use and occupation, as well as a decree of injunction restraining the appellant from alienating, encumbering or creating third-party interest therein<\/p>\n

The Family Court, in its Impugned order dated 22-3-2024, stated that the respondent had proven ownership via the 2011 Conveyance Deed, while the appellant had failed to prove financial contribution. Even if any contribution was presumed, it did not override the respondent’s title as absolute owner. The Family Court had further noted that the appellant’s right if any was that of a gratuitous licensee, whose right of residence stood revoked through the notices. The Family Court after taking note of the divorce decree had observed that the appellant had no enforceable right to remain on the premises and the appellant was granted six months to vacate the property. Further a decree of possession and permanent injunction was passed in favour of the respondent, though damages for unauthorized use and occupation were denied for lack of evidence. Thus, the present appeal was filed before the Court.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Court observed that Section 17 DV Act conferred upon every woman in a domestic relationship the right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of whether she had any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. The Court further observed that this right is not indefeasible, it does not create a proprietary interest in the property, and it is subject to lawful eviction in accordance with due process.<\/p>\n

It was further observed that statutory protections under Section 17 DV Act were firmly anchored in the existence of a “domestic relationship.” Once the marriage stood dissolved by a valid decree of divorce, the domestic relationship came to an end. Thus, the substratum upon which the right of residence is founded under Section 17 DV Act, no longer survives, unless a contrary statutory right is shown to persist. In the present case, the appellant’s marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 19-11-2019. Although the said decree was challenged by the appellant and the matter stood remanded for fresh adjudication, as on date there was no subsisting matrimonial bond or domestic relationship between the parties. In the absence of such a relationship, the foundational requirement for invoking Section 17 of the PWDV Act was lacking. The Court, thus observed that the appellant’s assertion of a continuing right of residence under the DV Act was materially weakened, subject to outcome of her pending appeal.<\/p>\n

The Court next shifted its focus on the question of ownership and possession of the suit property. The Court noted that while the respondents claim was based on will dated 20-7-2013, allegedly executed by the deceased respondent in favour of her daughter, the appellant disputed genuineness of the will, terming it forged and fabricated.<\/p>\n

The Court further observed that the will was duly produced and proved through PW 3, one of the attesting witnesses. While in cross-examination he was unable to recall the name of the other attesting witness and was confronted with unfounded suggestions of monetary inducement, these lapses did not, in themselves, shake the core of his testimony or the legal validity of the execution. Since the document had the requisite signatures and satisfied the statutory requirements under Section 63<\/a> of the Indian Succession Act, 1925<\/a> and Section 68<\/a> of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872<\/a> the Will stood duly proved, and the respondents’ title flowing therefrom could not be doubted.<\/p>\n

The Court while placing reliance on the Relinquishment Deed dated 1-11-2016, allegedly executed by appellant’ husband in favour of his sister observed that the appellant had failed to substantiate her claim that the deed was a collusive device created to defeat her claim of residence. The Court noted that the Family Court had rightly placed reliance on the registered Conveyance Deed dated 7-6-2011, which independently established that the title in the suit property vested in the deceased Respondent, and thereafter devolved in terms of the Will.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that the appellant’s submission that PW 1 could not recall the precise details of the original acquisition did not dilute the evidentiary worth of the registered documents and the burden lay upon the appellant to prove her plea of contribution or duress, which she had failed to discharge.<\/p>\n

The Court while considering the appellants plea about the suit property being ancestral or her family having contributed towards its acquisition observed that the evidence adduced fell short of establishing any legal or equitable interest of the appellant in the suit property. Further the assertion that the appellant’s brother, had advanced a sum of Rs 60,000 in 1998 remained uncorroborated by any documentary proof. The Court observed that while oral testimony reflected the witness’s belief, it did not satisfy the evidentiary standard necessary to dislodge the registered title documents produced by the respondents. The Court thus observed that the appellant’s claim of contribution could not translate into an enforceable proprietary right.<\/p>\n

The Court with regards to eviction of appellant from suit property observed that notices revoking the appellant’s permissive occupation were issued as far back as 2013, followed by the institution of the possession suit. The Court further observed that the Family Court decreed possession only after a comprehensive appraisal of the pleadings and evidence and even granted the appellant six months’ time to vacate, thus, the process was neither arbitrary nor equitable.<\/p>\n

The Court, thus finding no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Family Court dismissed the present appeal along with all pending applications.<\/p>\n

[X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5593<\/a>, decided on 21-8-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by: Justice Anil Kshetarpal<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Appellant:<\/span> J. C. Mahindro, Advocates<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Sanjay Kumar Chhikana and Mr. Ujjwal Arora, Advocates.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“A plain reading of Section 17 DV Act confers upon every woman in a domestic relationship the right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of whether she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. However, it does not create a proprietary interest in the property and is subject to lawful eviction in accordance with due process.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":357939,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2543,30329,3171,75265,83730,9661,43798,87968],"class_list":["post-357903","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-domestic-relationship","tag-Domestic_Violence","tag-justice-anil-kshetarpal","tag-justice-harish-vaidyanathan-shankar","tag-property-dispute","tag-right-to-residence","tag-section-17-dv-act-2005"],"yoast_head":"\nNo right to residence after divorce: DHC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court orders woman to vacate matrimonial home citing end of domestic relationship and right to residence after divorce\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Right to Residence under Domestic Violence Act ends upon divorce, unless a contrary statutory right persists : Delhi High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court orders woman to vacate matrimonial home citing end of domestic relationship and right to residence after divorce\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-26T10:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-28T04:31:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Right-to-residence-after-divorce.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Right to Residence under Domestic Violence Act ends upon divorce, unless a contrary statutory right persists : Delhi High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/\",\"name\":\"No right to residence after divorce: DHC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Right-to-residence-after-divorce.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-26T10:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-28T04:31:23+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court orders woman to vacate matrimonial home citing end of domestic relationship and right to residence after divorce\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Right-to-residence-after-divorce.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Right-to-residence-after-divorce.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Right to residence after divorce\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Right to Residence under Domestic Violence Act ends upon divorce, unless a contrary statutory right persists : Delhi High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"No right to residence after divorce: DHC | SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court orders woman to vacate matrimonial home citing end of domestic relationship and right to residence after divorce","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Right to Residence under Domestic Violence Act ends upon divorce, unless a contrary statutory right persists : Delhi High Court","og_description":"Delhi High Court orders woman to vacate matrimonial home citing end of domestic relationship and right to residence after divorce","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-08-26T10:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-08-28T04:31:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Right-to-residence-after-divorce.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Right to Residence under Domestic Violence Act ends upon divorce, unless a contrary statutory right persists : Delhi High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/","name":"No right to residence after divorce: DHC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Right-to-residence-after-divorce.webp","datePublished":"2025-08-26T10:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-28T04:31:23+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Delhi High Court orders woman to vacate matrimonial home citing end of domestic relationship and right to residence after divorce","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Right-to-residence-after-divorce.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Right-to-residence-after-divorce.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Right to residence after divorce"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/no-right-to-residence-after-divorce-section-17-dv-act-matrimonial-home-delhi-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Right to Residence under Domestic Violence Act ends upon divorce, unless a contrary statutory right persists : Delhi High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Right-to-residence-after-divorce.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":202009,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/20\/right-of-residence-in-shared-household-under-domestic-violence-act-can-be-claimed-only-against-husband-and-not-father-in-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":357903,"position":0},"title":"Right of residence in \u2018shared household\u2019 under Domestic Violence Act can be claimed only against husband and not father-in-law","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of R.K. Gauba, J. dismissed a petition filed by the petitioner-wife for a right to possession in the house owned by her father-in-law. The wife had filed a suit under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":365662,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/03\/dhc-on-in-laws-rights-to-residence-under-domestic-violence-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":357903,"position":1},"title":"Domestic Violence | In -law’s\u2019 right to residence is not subordinate to that of daughter-in-law: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"November 3, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWhile the Domestic Violence 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.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"in-laws rights to residence","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/in-laws-rights-to-residence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/in-laws-rights-to-residence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/in-laws-rights-to-residence.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/in-laws-rights-to-residence.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":213792,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/20\/bom-hc-divorced-wife-cannot-file-application-under-domestic-violence-act-application-filed-under-ss-12-and-18-rejected-in-absence-of-domestic-relationship\/","url_meta":{"origin":357903,"position":2},"title":"Bom HC | Divorced wife cannot file application under Domestic Violence Act; application filed under Ss. 12 and 18 rejected in absence of “domestic relationship”","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 20, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0M.G. Giratkar, J. refused to interfere with an order of the Judicial Magistrate as confirmed by the Sessions Judge, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 12 and 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was dismissed. The applicant married to the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":269901,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/11\/satish-chander-ahuja-v-sneha-ahuja-the-progress-of-any-society-depends-on-its-ability-to-protect-and-promote-the-rights-of-its-women\/","url_meta":{"origin":357903,"position":3},"title":"Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja: “The Progress of any Society Depends on its Ability to Protect and Promote the Rights of its Women”","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 11, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Roma Sangwan\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"by Roma Sangwan","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-2-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-2-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-2-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-2-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-2-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":312481,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/30\/delhi-high-court-dismiss-wife-appeal-failure-establish-shared-household-domestic-violence-claim-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":357903,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court dismisses appeal by wife on failure to establish shared household in Domestic Violence claim","author":"Arunima","date":"January 30, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"On perusal of the definition of \"shared household\" and the provisions of Sections 17 and 19 of Domestic Violence Act states that to show \u201cshared household\u201d the parties must show the place where they have lived together in the past.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":267576,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/30\/whether-right-to-claim-maintenance-under-domestic-violence-act-and-s-125-crpc-are-mutually-exclusive-delhi-high-court-law-legal-news-legal-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":357903,"position":5},"title":"Whether right to claim maintenance under Domestic Violence Act and S. 125 CrPC are mutually exclusive? Del HC elaborates","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 30, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., observed that, the right to claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act and those under Section 125 CrPC are not mutually exclusive i.e. the aggrieved person can seek interim maintenance before the Magistrate while also seeking permanent maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. In the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/DelMain.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/DelMain.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/DelMain.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/DelMain.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/DelMain.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/357903","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=357903"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/357903\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/357939"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=357903"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=357903"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=357903"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}