16/02/2026
Right to Residence Is Not a Right to Re-Enter Any Past Home, Delhi High Court Dismisses Wife’s Claim
In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of residence rights under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Delhi High Court has held that the right to reside in a “shared household” does not amount to a perpetual right to re-enter any property once occupied in the past.
The case was filed by an 81-year-old woman who sought restoration of residence in her former matrimonial home at Green Park. She approached the Court under the DV Act alleging that she was denied re-entry after temporarily shifting out for medical reasons. However, the Court found that she had consciously and voluntarily shifted to another house at Safdarjung Enclave, also owned by her husband.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, affirming the concurrent findings of the Magistrate and the Sessions Court, held that a “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the DV Act must exist in praesenti — meaning it must be a current and subsisting living arrangement. A property previously occupied cannot automatically qualify as a shared household merely because it was once the matrimonial residence.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s relocation in April 2023 was not temporary. It noted that she had affixed her nameplate at the Safdarjung property and had consistently mentioned that address in police complaints and court proceedings. These circumstances indicated that the move was conscious and voluntary, not compelled.
Rejecting the plea for restoration, the Court clarified that Sections 17 and 19 of the DV Act are designed to protect women from being rendered shelterless, not to enforce proprietary rights over specific properties. The statute safeguards against dispossession but does not create an indefeasible right to insist on residence in a particular house when suitable alternate accommodation is available.
The Court also found no material to establish domestic violence or economic abuse. It observed that the petitioner was not left without shelter and that the alternate residence was of similar standard. In the absence of forcible dispossession or deprivation of residence, the core protective object of the DV Act stood satisfied.
Referring to settled principles, the Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised to re-appreciate evidence when lower courts have recorded concurrent, well-reasoned findings. Finding no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the courts below, the High Court dismissed the petition.
