Court Rules Right to Residence Not Equivalent to Ownership Under Domestic Violence Act
The Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgment on August 6, 2026, in the case of Smt. Kavita Nigam v. Sh. Ashok Nigam, reinforcing the right of senior citizens to reclaim their property from family members under certain circumstances. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna presided over the appeal challenging the judgment of the Additional District Judge, which had granted possession of the disputed property to the father-in-law, Sh. Ashok Nigam.
The case revolved around the right of residence of a daughter-in-law, Smt. Kavita Nigam, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The court clarified that while a daughter-in-law has a right to reside in the shared household, this does not translate into an ownership right or an indefeasible right to permanent residence. The court emphasized that the right to residence can be fulfilled through alternative accommodation or rent, particularly when the property belongs to a senior citizen and the husband has moved out.
The court noted that the property in question was owned by Sh. Ashok Nigam, the father-in-law, and had been mutated in his favor since 1976. The Appellant, Kavita Nigam, began residing in the property following her marriage in 2009 but left amidst marital disputes. Her husband, Respondent No. 2, moved to rented accommodation, leaving her to reside alone in the father-in-law's house. The court found that her right of residence, as per the DV Act, should not impose an undue burden on the father-in-law, especially when her husband was willing to provide alternative accommodation.
The judgment also addressed the discretionary power under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which allows for a decree based on admissions if they are clear and unambiguous. In this case, the admissions made by the Appellant about the ownership of the property were deemed sufficient for the decree of possession.
Additionally, the court highlighted the importance of balancing rights under the DV Act with those under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, ensuring that the father-in-law's right to peaceful living is respected.
The appeal by Kavita Nigam was dismissed, with the court maintaining the decree of possession in favor of Ashok Nigam. However, it was reiterated that the Appellant should not be left without shelter, and her husband is obligated to continue providing rent for alternative accommodation until the resolution of their matrimonial proceedings.
Bottom Line :
A daughter-in-law's right to residence in a shared household under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is a right to reside and not an indefeasible right to ownership or permanent occupation of the property. The right can be secured by alternate accommodation or rent, especially when the property belongs to a senior citizen father-in-law and the husband no longer resides in the shared household.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Sections 17(1), 17(2), 19(1)(f); Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6; Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Smt. Kavita Nigam v. Sh. Ashok Nigam, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2966584
