No Section 17 residence right arises absent proof that premises were a shared household.

The petitioner, legally married to K.N. Madhusudhan, sought relief under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“PWDV Act”), including protection concerning premises owned by the respondent partnership firm, in which her husband held a 20% share.

The Magistrate made an interim protection order concerning the premises on 25 May 2011.

The firm appealed under Section 29 of the PWDV Act; the Sessions Court allowed the appeal on 25 March 2021 and directed the petitioner to vacate within three months, with possession thereafter recoverable through due process.

The petitioner challenged that order in revision.

The DV application had been dismissed in 2017, and the decree dissolving the petitioner’s marriage had been upheld on appeal.

1. Whether the petitioner could continue residing in the firm-owned premises as a “shared household” under the PWDV Act, particularly after dissolution of her marriage.

2. Whether the Sessions Court erred in allowing the firm’s appeal and directing the petitioner to vacate the premises.

Section 17 of the PWDV Act gives a woman in a domestic relationship the right to reside in a shared household, irrespective of her proprietary interest, and protects her from eviction except in accordance with law; Section 2(s) defines a shared household by reference to a household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship.

Section 2(f) defines a domestic relationship as one in which the parties live or have lived together in a shared household while related by marriage or another specified relationship.

The Court referred to *Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja*, (2020) 11 SCC 770, and *Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi*, (2022) 8 SCC 90, as recognising that a shared household need not be owned by the husband and that residence protection may extend beyond his lifetime where the household was shared.

It also relied on *Kuldeep Kaur v. Swaran Kaur Through LRs*, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5593, for the proposition that dissolution of marriage ends the domestic relationship and that a continuing residence right must otherwise be shown.

Section 29 provides a right of appeal to the Court of Sessions against an order made by the Magistrate; the Court accepted that a party whose rights are affected may avail of that remedy.

The Court accepted the lower appellate court’s factual finding, based on documentary evidence and the petitioner’s cross-examination, that the firm was in actual possession of the premises for business purposes and that the petitioner was not residing there when the interim protection order was made.

Her husband’s partnership interest did not establish that the firm’s property was the petitioner’s matrimonial home or a shared household.

The Court further considered that the DV application had been dismissed, the marriage had been dissolved and the divorce decree upheld, and no subsisting finding established a right of residence in the premises.

On those facts, it concluded that the petitioner had not established the basis for a continuing right under Section 17 and that the firm could pursue possession through due process.

It found no merit in the revision, affirmed the Sessions Court’s order directing her to vacate, and dismissed the criminal revision petition; pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed.