The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an 81-year-old woman seeking restoration of possession of her matrimonial home, ruling that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005, does not grant an absolute right to re-enter a shared household that an aggrieved person has voluntarily left, particularly when suitable alternate accommodation is available.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while rejecting the plea, observed that directing restoration of possession in the present case would disturb the settled possession of current occupants and stretch the scope of the law beyond its intended purpose. The court emphasised that the DV Act is a protective statute meant to safeguard women from domestic violence, but it cannot be used as a mechanism to reclaim any previously shared residence irrespective of circumstances.

“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,” the court said.

Also Read: Priya Kapur Seeks Dismissal of Suit: Accuses Rani Kapur of Cheating Court

The petitioner had challenged trial court orders that rejected her application under Sections 19 and 23 of the DV Act. She sought a residence order permitting her re-entry into her matrimonial home in Green Park, claiming she had lived there for nearly six decades. According to her, she had temporarily moved to her daughter’s residence in April 2023 for medical treatment. She alleged that when she attempted to return in July 2023, she was denied entry.

However, the High Court noted that her departure from the matrimonial home was not shown to have been forced by violence, coercion, or any immediate threat. The court referred to her own complaint, in which she stated that she had shifted for treatment purposes. It further observed that she had voluntarily moved to another property owned by her husband and had not been rendered homeless.

Justice Dudeja underscored that relief under Section 19 of the DV Act is discretionary and equitable in nature. The court must balance the rights of the aggrieved woman with those of other occupants and property owners. Since suitable alternate accommodation of a similar standard was available to her, the court held that she was not entitled to a residence order directing restoration of possession or re-entry into the property.

Also Read: Sunjay Kapur's Children Demand Criminal Action Against Priya Over Forged Will Allegations