The Delhi High Court has held that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act does not confer an indefeasible or automatic right on an aggrieved woman to insist on re-entry into her former matrimonial home once she has voluntarily shifted to suitable alternate accommodation. The Court observed that compelling restoration of possession in such circumstances would go beyond the legislative intent of the Act, which is intended to offer protective relief rather than to create a perpetual entitlement to occupy a particular property. In the case before it, an 81-year-old woman had filed a plea under the Act seeking a direction to permit her to return to her matrimonial home, alleging that she had been denied re-entry and rendered shelterless. The petitioner contended that she had lived in that home for decades and sought restoration of her residence there.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while delivering the judgment, noted that the petitioner had shifted to another accommodation owned by her husband, and that this move was made voluntarily rather than due to coercion or violence that left her truly “roofless.” The Court emphasised that the relief under Section 19 of the Act is discretionary and equitable, and must be balanced against the rights of other occupants and owners of the property. It found that given the availability of alternate accommodation of the same standard, and the discretionary nature of residence orders under the Act, there was no basis to compel the re-entry of the petitioner into the earlier property. The Court pointed out that attempting to restore the petitioner to the erstwhile residence would disrupt the settled possession of the current occupants and would effectively convert a protective statute into a mechanism for automatic re-entry into any past residence, which was not the intention of the legislature.
In arriving at its decision, the Court underscored that the right to residence under the Domestic Violence Act is protective in character and does not amount to an absolute right of possession or ownership. It stressed that once suitable alternative accommodation is available and the petitioner has chosen to move there, the statutory right under the Act does not entitle her to reclaim her former matrimonial home as a matter of course. As a result, the Court dismissed the petition seeking an order for re-entry into the matrimonial home, affirming that protection afforded by the Act must be interpreted in light of its purpose of safeguarding individuals from domestic violence rather than as a tool to mandate occupancy of a specific property once a new residence has been established.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.