Synopsis

The appellant (daughter-in-law) challenged a decree of mandatory injunction directing her eviction from the first floor of the suit property owned by her mother-in-law (respondent). She claimed the property was her “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and that she had a right of residence under Section 17. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that: (i) the suit property was not a shared household as the appellant had never lived in a “domestic relationship” with the respondent (mother-in-law); (ii) the appellant’s occupation was a permissive licence granted temporarily at the request of her husband; (iii) the licence was duly terminated; (iv) the right of residence under Section 17 is not absolute and is enforceable against the husband, not the mother-in-law; (v) senior citizens are entitled to live peacefully in their own homes.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Regular first appeal no. 1119 of 2025

Smt. upinder kaur malhotra (appellant) vs. Smt. gurmeet malhotra (respondent)

Coram: hon’ble ms. justice neena bansal krishna

Core Law: Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 2(s) (shared household), 17 (right to reside in shared household) – Interpretation of "shared household" – Right of daughter-in-law against mother-in-law – Permissive licence – Eviction of licensee.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna (Single Judge)
Date of Judgment: June 16, 2026 (Reserved on March 27, 2026)
Case No.: RFA No. 1119 of 2025

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 2(f) (domestic relationship), 2(s) (shared household), 17 (right to reside in shared household), 17(2) (eviction only by procedure established by law)

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 (appeals from original decrees), Order XLI Rule 1 (contents of appeal)

• Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – (referred to in context of senior citizens' rights)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether the suit property owned by the mother-in-law, in which the daughter-in-law was permitted to reside temporarily at the request of her husband, constitutes a “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the DV Act, entitling the daughter-in-law to a right of residence under Section 17 against the mother-in-law, and whether the mother-in-law can evict the daughter-in-law after termination of the licence.

Key legal principles applied:

• “Shared household” – exhaustive definition: Section 2(s) uses both “means” and “includes”, making the definition exhaustive. The first part requires that the person aggrieved must live or have lived in a “domestic relationship” in the household either singly or along with the respondent. The seco

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.