Manju Arora v. Delhi High Court (2025): Reaffirming the Boundaries of the Right of Residence under the PWDV Act

In the case, RFA(OS) 64/2025 (Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora & Anr.) the decision was made in the year 2025, touched upon the acute opposition of the right of a senior citizen to live in a peaceful location in his / her self-acquired property and the statutory right of residence of a daughter-in-law under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act, 2005. The appeal case addressed an appeal of a mandatory injunction that had ordered the daughter-in-law (Appellant) to leave the property that was owned by senior citizen parents-in-law only (Respondents).

Since the relationship between the family had deteriorated and was now acrimonious to the extent that it resulted in more litigations (about twenty-five cases) and made living together toxic and unfeasible, the Court upheld the eviction order. The Court restated that the legal principle laid down in the previous cases that the right of residence pursuant to Section 17 of the PWDV Act was a right of occupation and not of property and that the right was not indefeasible. This protection provided by law, which is aimed to stop poverty, should be weighed against the right of dignity and tranquility of the elderly citizens at home.

Key Takeaways

Senior citizens’ right to live with dignity and peace outweighs perpetual residence claims of a daughter-in-law under the PWDV Act.

Right of residence under the PWDV Act is limited and conditional, not equivalent to ownership or an indefeasible claim.

Eviction upheld as fair and lawful since the daughter-in-law was provided with comprehensive alternate accommodation by the senior citizens.

The eviction was considered reasonable since the Respondents willingly provided and were required to do so under Section 19(1)(f) of PWDV Act. The order maintained by the High Court stipulates that the Respondents will have to procure a two-bedroom flat in a similar area, at a maximum rent of Rs. 65,000/- per month, plus all the other indirect expenses, such as, brokerage, security deposit, upkeep, electricity, water, etc. This decision maintains that an adequate provision of alternate arrangements is enough to protect the rights of the aggrieved woman with the owners being allowed to obtain peaceful possession back.

Manju Arora Versus Neelam Arora & Anr.