Domestic Violence Act — Shared Household Is Not Ownership · 25 August 2025
Delhi High Court: Right of Residence Under Section 17 DV Act Is a Shield Against Eviction, Not a Route to Ownership
High Court of Delhi · 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1016
Download the full judgment (PDF)
Enter your name and WhatsApp number to get the download link. We'll also let you know on WhatsApp if we can help with this case — filing, tracking, or anything else — no obligation either way.
We use this only to send the link and to follow up about this case. See our privacy policy.
A mother-in-law had obtained a decree for possession of a property against her daughter-in-law, after a trial court found — on the strength of an unchallenged probate — that the mother-in-law was its rightful owner, and that the daughter-in-law's licence to stay there had already been terminated in 2011. The daughter-in-law had not in fact lived at the property for the previous 13 years, since 2012, having left of her own accord. She appealed against the decree, which also directed her to pay mesne profits for the period of her continued, unauthorised occupation.
The Delhi High Court upheld the possession decree, but set aside the portion awarding mesne profits. In doing so, the Division Bench clarified the scope of the right of residence under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: it operates as a shield against a woman being arbitrarily dispossessed from a shared household, not as a sword that can be used to claim ownership or proprietary rights in property that belongs to someone else. Once that right of residence has been lawfully terminated through due process, the Court held, it cannot be revived to defeat a rightful owner's claim to possession.
General information, not legal advice. This is a plain-language summary for awareness only. Every case turns on its own facts, and this judgment does not decide how a court will rule in your matter. For advice on your own case, speak to an independent advocate — MyCaseFile is not a law firm and does not interpret judgments for anyone's case.