'Not Entitled To Residence Order': Delhi HC Rejects Elderly Woman's Plea On Matrimonial Discord

Last Updated:February 12, 2026, 11:21 IST

The Delhi High Court has held that the Domestic Violence Act does not give an aggrieved woman an absolute right to re-enter a matrimonial home she had voluntarily left.

The Delhi High Court has held that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, does not confer an indefeasible right upon an aggrieved woman to insist on residing in a particular property that she had earlier left, especially when suitable alternate accommodation is available.

As reported by Live Law, Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that compelling restoration of possession in such circumstances would disturb the settled possession of current occupants and extend the scope of the law beyond its legislative intent.

The court dismissed a petition filed by an 81-year-old woman seeking restoration of possession in her matrimonial home.

It held that she had voluntarily shifted to another property owned by her husband and had not been rendered roofless.

CHALLENGE TO TRIAL COURT ORDERS

The woman had approached the High Court challenging trial court orders, which declined her plea under Sections 19 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act.

She sought a residence order permitting her re-entry into the matrimonial home property.

According to her case, she had resided in the matrimonial home for nearly six decades.

She stated that in April 2023, she temporarily shifted to her daughter’s residence for medical treatment.

However, when she attempted to return in July 2023, she alleged that she was denied entry.

The High Court, however, noted that her move from the matrimonial home to alternate accommodation was not shown to have been compelled by violence or coercion.

The court also recorded that in her own complaint, she had stated that she shifted for the purpose of treatment.

RELIEF UNDER SECTION 19 IS DISCRETIONARY

Relying on the statutory framework, the court underscored that relief under Section 19 of the Act is not automatic but discretionary and equitable in nature.

“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," the court said.

“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," it added.

The bench further held that the availability of suitable alternate accommodation of the same standard was a significant factor in declining the relief sought.

“Therefore, in view of the availability of suitable alternate accommodation of the same standard and the discretionary and protective nature of relief under Section 19, the petitioner is not entitled to a residence order directing restoration or re-entry into the Green Park property," it added.

News india 'Not Entitled To Residence Order': Delhi HC Rejects Elderly Woman's Plea On Matrimonial Discord

Read More