Wife’s Right To Shared Household Under DV Act No Bar To Partition Of Matrimonial Home Between Divorced Couple: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a married woman’s right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act cannot override or nullify the lawful entitlement of husband to seek partition or enforcement of ownership rights in civil proceedings.
A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar thus dismissed a divorced woman’s appeal against Family Court judgment declaring her and her former husband are entitled to 50% each in the suit property.
The woman claimed that the suit property constitutes her matrimonial home and thus falls within the definition of a ‘shared household’ under Section 17 of the PWDV Act.
She further claimed that the provision is intended to protect the right of a woman to reside in the shared household and thus no co-owner, including the Respondent-husband, has any right to seek partition or to disturb her possession.
The High Court however emphasized that the right to reside in the shared household e is not absolute in nature. It stressed on Section 17(2) of the PWDV Act which prescribes that a woman shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household “except in accordance with the procedure established by law”.
In the present case, the Court said the Respondent was not seeking to evict the Appellant without following due process, but had initiated a civil action for partition of the jointly owned property. It observed,
“The Appellant, who herself claims to be a co-owner, would not be rendered homeless by the mere fact of partition. Upon division of the property, she would continue to be entitled to reside in her allocated portion, or in the event of sale, receive her share of the proceeds to secure alternative accommodation.”
The Court also held that the right of residence under the PWDV Act is intended to provide shelter and protection to a woman facing domestic violence, and not to indefinitely resist lawful claims arising out of title or co-ownership.
“If the objective of secure residence can be achieved by other lawful means, such as the allotment of a share in the partition or by provision of alternate accommodation, the aggrieved person cannot insist upon retaining exclusive possession of the entire property,” it added.
As such, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Appearance: Mr. Rajat Bhalla, Adv. With appellant in person; Mr. Ajay Kumar Chopra, Mr. Mudit Talesara, Mr. Samarth Talesara and MS. Nandita Mishra, Advs. For Respondent
Case title: SJ v. AJ
Case no.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 270/2025