"No Re-Entry To Matrimonial Home If...": 81-Year-Old Woman's Plea Rejected

Rejecting an 81-year-old woman's petition seeking restoration of possession in her matrimonial home, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, does not grant an indefeasible right to an aggrieved woman to insist on residing in a particular property that she had earlier left, especially when suitable alternate accommodation is available.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that directing restoration of possession in such circumstances would disturb the settled possession of current occupants and stretch the scope of 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 said.

The High Court dismissed a petition filed by an 81-year-old woman seeking restoration of possession of her matrimonial home. The court noted that she had voluntarily shifted to another property owned by her husband and was not rendered roofless.

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

However, the court noted that her move from the matrimonial home was not shown to be compelled by violence or coercion. It also referred to her own complaint, in which she had stated that she shifted for treatment purposes.

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

Observing that suitable alternate accommodation of the same standard was available to her, the court held that she was not entitled to a residence order directing restoration or re-entry into the Green Park property.

The petition was accordingly dismissed.