Smt Geeta vs Smt Dropati

Court
Delhi High Court

$~112
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: 28.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010208992025
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 168/2025, Crl.M.A. NOs.12458/2025,
14124/2025, 19241/2025, 24633/2025, 24634/2025, 31892/2025
+
SMT GEETA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Mehra, Mr. Devender,
Mr. Vikash Kumar, Mr. Vikshit
Kumar and Mr. DigvijayRana, Advs.
along with petitioner in person.
versus
SMT DROPATI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Rishabh Raj Jain and Mr. Om
Swarup Kumar, Advs. for BSES
YPL.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( Oral .)

1. The matter was adjourned for today for the parties to be present.
2. The petitioner is present in person. She submits that she is living in a
garage and is facing acute distress on account of being ousted from her
matrimonial home. She seeks interim residence in the house of her late
husband’s mother. The petitioner's application under Section 23 of the
Domestic Violence Act (‘DV Act’), 2005 was dismissed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate on 08.02.2024. Her appeal against the said order,
under Section 29 of the DV Act was dismissed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge on 07.01.2025 in CA No.44/2024.
3. The present revision petition is against the aforesaid appellate order
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 168/2025 Page 1 of 8



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:28:34

dated 07.0.2025.
4. The factual conspectus is as follows:
(i) The petitioner claims to be the wife of late Raju, son of respondent
no.1. She states that she lived on the fourth floor of House No.
18/213, Trilokpuri, Delhi. Respondent no.1 lives on the ground floor
in the same house.
(ii) On an application dated 03.03.2022 filed by the respondent no.1,
under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007; the learned District Magistrate directed the petitioner and
her alleged late husband to vacate the fourth floor vide order dated
03.03.2022 in Eviction No. 381/2021.
(iii) On 17.03.2023, the Divisional Commissioner/ Appellate
Authority set aside the order of the District Magistrate dated
03.03.2022, noting that the deceased Raju was a co-owner of the said
house.
(iv) The petitioner alleges that on 13.08.2022, the electricity supply to
the fourth floor was disconnected at the instance of respondent no. 1
which compelled the couple to move out.
(v) The husband filed a civil suit, CS No.882/2022 against respondent
no. 1, in which he sought interim relief for restoration of water and
electricity and against dispossession. No interim injunction was
granted; the application was dismissed on 18.07.2023, as there was
nothing on record to show that he was then in possession, and the
appeal against the same was dismissed on 23.01.2024. The petitioner
was not a party to that suit.
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 168/2025 Page 2 of 8



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:28:34

(vi) The husband of the petitioner died on 16.11.2024. His legal
representative, the petitioner herein, was substituted in the said civil
suit. The suit was thereafter withdrawn on 28.05.2025 with liberty to
file a fresh suit in accordance with law. Thereafter, on 07.08.2025, the
respondent no.1 unconditionally withdrew the Civil Suit No.
459/2023 filed by her for permanent and mandatory injunction against
the petitioner and late Raju.
(vii) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated
08.02.2024, declined interim residence to the petitioner, observing
that since multiple cases were pending between the parties in regard
to the property, it is in the best interest of the parties that the residence
right of the petitioner be decided at the conclusion of trial. The said
order was assailed by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section
29 of the DV Act. The same came to be decided by the impugned
order dated 07.01.2025.
5. In the opinion of the Court, the impugned orders cannot be sustained
due to the following reasons:
(i) The learned ASJ treated the petitioner’s exclusion from the
property as being under the procedure established by law. However, it
was completely overlooked that the eviction order dated 03.03.2022,
passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 and the rules framed thereunder was set aside in
appellate proceedings by the Divisional Commissioner vide order
dated 17.03.2023.
(ii) The learned ASJ also took a negative view on the ground that
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 168/2025 Page 3 of 8



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:28:34

husband of the petitioner had filed a civil suit. It was overlooked that
the petitioner herein was not a party in the said civil suit and the
orders passed in the said civil suit have no bearing on the petitioner’s
right of residence under Section 17 of the DV Act.
(iii) The impugned order treated it as relevant that the plaintiff made
no allegations against her husband. The same is however, immaterial.
A complaint under the DV Act lies against a female relative of the
husband. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of
Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora , (2016) 10 SCC
165 wherein the following has been observed:-
“23. When we come to Section 19 and residence orders that can be
passed by the Magistrate, Section 19(1)(c) makes it clear that the
Magistrate may pass a residence order, on being satisfied that
domestic violence has taken place, and may restrain the respondent
or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared
household in which the aggrieved person resides. This again is a
pointer to the fact that a residence order will be toothless unless
the relatives, which include female relatives of the respondent, are
also bound by it. And we have seen from the definition of
“respondent” that this can only be the case when a wife or a
common law wife is an aggrieved person, and not if any other
woman belonging to a family is an aggrieved person. Therefore, in
the case of a wife or a common law wife complaining of domestic
violence, the husband's relatives including mother-in-law and
sister-in-law can be arrayed as respondents and effective orders
passed against them.
But in the case of a mother-in-law or sister-
in-law who is an aggrieved person, the respondent can only be an
“adult male person” and since his relatives are not within the main
part of the definition of respondent in Section 2(q), residence
orders passed by the Magistrate under Section 19(1)(c) against
female relatives of such person would be unenforceable as they
cannot be made parties to petitions under the Act.”
(iv) It has also been held that a shared household includes a house
belonging to a relative of the husband where the aggrieved person
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 168/2025 Page 4 of 8



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:28:34

lived in a domestic relationship, and it does not need to belong to the
husband. In this regard, reference may be made to the following
observations of the Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v.
Sneha Ahuja , (2021) 1 SCC 414:
“68. The words “lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic
relationship” have to be given its normal and purposeful meaning.
The living of woman in a household has to refer to a living which
has some permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living at different
places shall not make a shared household. The intention of the
parties and the nature of living including the nature of household
have to be looked into to find out as to whether the parties intended
to treat the premises as shared household or not. As noted above,
the 2005 Act was enacted to give a higher right in favour of
women. The 2005 Act has been enacted to provide formore
effective protection of therightsof the women who are victims of
violence of any kind occurring within the family. The Act has to be
interpreted in a manner to effectuate the very purpose and object of
the Act. Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of the 2005 Act
grants an entitlement in favour of the woman of the right of
residence under the shared household irrespective of her having
any legal interest in the same or not.
*
91. In view of the foregoing discussions, we answer Issues 1 and 2
in the following manner:
91.1. The definition of “shared household” given in Section 2(s)
cannot be read to mean that shared household can only be that
household which is household of the joint family of which husband
is a member or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a
share.”


(v) The learned Magistrate also did not consider the domestic incident
report (‘DIR’) dated 18.11.2023 as mandated by the proviso to
Section 12(1) of the DV Act. Its contents were not adverted to by the
learned ASJ either. The DIR records the allegation that respondent
no.1 forced the petitioner out of the shared householdby cutting off
the water and electricity supply.
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 168/2025 Page 5 of 8



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:28:34

6. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the orders dated 08.02.2024
and 07.01.2025 are set aside.
7. The application under Section 23 of the DV Act is restored to the file
of the Metropolitan Magistrate.
8. However, the petitioner cannot be left without a roof in the meantime
while the application is decided.
9. The protection officer’s report dated 23.05.2025 shows that the
petitioner is living in a garage without basic facilities. The same reads as
under:

10. What is also disturbing is that during the course of hearing today, it
has been brought to the notice of this Court that notwithstanding the interim
order passed by this Court on 22.05.2025 and 24.09.2025, restraining
creation of third-party rights in the fourth floor and directing maintenance of
status quo , the fourth floor of the property has been sold. Clearly, the
respondent no.1 cannot be permitted to take advantage of the flagrant breach
on her part, of orders passed by this Court and thereby defeat the petitioner’s
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 168/2025 Page 6 of 8



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:28:34

claim to a shared household. At least one floor of the same house is with the
respondent no.1.
11. In the circumstances, considering the hardship being faced by the
petitioner, it is directed that as an interim measure, during the pendency of
the application under Section 23 of the DV Act (which is relegated to the
concerned Magistrate), the petitioner shall be accommodated in one of the
floors of House No.18/213, Trilokpuri, Delhi-110091 within one week from
today.
12. For this purpose, the SHO, P.S.Trilokpuri shall visit the premises and
ensure that the respondent no.1 is suitably inducted in a portion of the
property where she can reside.
13. The respondent no.1 shall not obstruct the petitioner’s entry,
residence, or the use of basic amenities such as water and electricity.
14. In case of any obstruction by the respondent no.1 or by any other
person, the concerned SHO shall render appropriate assistance to the
petitioner.
15. The SHO shall file a compliance report before the concerned
Metropolitan Magistrate, identifying the portion in which the petitioner has
been accommodated.
16. The petitioner shall been entitled to use the same electricity
connection which is installed in the property in question.
17. The aforesaid interim arrangement shall abide by the outcome of the
application under Section 23 of the DV Act before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 168/2025 Page 7 of 8



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:28:34

18. The petition, along with pending applications, is disposed of in the
above terms.
19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the SHO P.S. Trilokpuri
for compliance.
SACHIN DATTA, J
OCTOBER 28, 2026/ cl
CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 168/2025 Page 8 of 8



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:UMANG
Signing Date:30.10.2026
16:28:34