Widow Living in Garage Must Be Accommodated on One Floor of Mother-in-Law’s House Pending DV Act Residence Plea: Delhi HC

The petitioner claimed to be the wife of the respondent’s late son and to have lived with him on the fourth floor of a house in which the respondent occupied the ground floor.

An eviction order made against the petitioner and her husband under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, was set aside on appeal after the appellate authority noted that the husband was a co-owner.

The petitioner alleged that the respondent caused the electricity supply to the fourth floor to be disconnected, forcing the couple to leave.

After the husband’s death, the petitioner’s application for interim residence under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”) was dismissed by the Magistrate; her appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

The High Court noted that the Protection Officer’s report recorded that the petitioner was living in a garage without basic facilities, and that the fourth floor had been sold despite the High Court’s interim orders restraining creation of third-party rights and directing status quo.

Section 17 of the DV Act grants an aggrieved woman a right to reside in a shared household, irrespective of whether she has a legal interest in it; under Section 2(s), a shared household is not confined to property owned by the husband or a joint family.

Section 19 permits residence orders, including orders restraining the respondent or the respondent’s relatives from entering specified portions of a shared household; Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, (2016) 10 SCC 165, confirms that a husband’s female relatives may be respondents in a wife’s DV Act proceeding.

Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414, explains that the shared-household definition should be given a purposive interpretation and that residence rights do not depend on the woman’s legal interest in the property.

The proviso to Section 12(1) requires consideration of the Domestic Incident Report (DIR); Section 23 empowers the Magistrate to grant interim relief.

The High Court held that the appellate court’s reasoning could not stand because it failed to account for the setting aside of the eviction order under the Senior Citizens Act and treated the husband’s civil suit as adverse to the petitioner, although she was not a party and those proceedings did not determine her independent residence claim under the DV Act.

The courts also wrongly treated the absence of allegations against the husband as material, given that the respondent mother-in-law could be proceeded against under the Act.

Further, the Magistrate had not considered the DIR, which recorded the allegation that the respondent forced the petitioner out by cutting off water and electricity.

In light of the petitioner’s reported living conditions and the sale of the fourth floor despite the High Court’s orders, the Court found that she could not be left without shelter while her application was reconsidered.

Pending its determination, the respondent was directed to accommodate the petitioner in a floor of the house within one week; the SHO was directed to facilitate her accommodation, ensure access to the premises and basic amenities, and report compliance to the Magistrate.

The interim arrangement was made subject to the outcome of the Section 23 application, without expressing any view on the merits.