A v. B, 2025
It was held that no right to residence under Section 17 of PWDVA exists after divorce, unless there is a separate statutory right.
Judgement Details
Court
Delhi High Court
Date of Decision
23 August 2025
Judges
Justice Anil Kshetarpal ⦁ Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The appellant (daughter-in-law) was married in 1999 and resided at the disputed matrimonial home.
-
Property was initially in the husband’s name, later transferred to his mother (respondent/plaintiff in original suit).
-
The mother-in-law passed away in 2016, leaving behind a Will in favour of her daughter (daughter’s estate represented in suit).
-
The daughter-in-law claimed a right to reside in the house under Section 17 of PWDVA, arguing:
-
It was her matrimonial home.
-
She had made financial contributions to the property.
-
She was allegedly forcibly dispossessed during marital disputes.
-
-
Family Court ruled against her, upholding the Will and granting possession to the daughter (new owner via Will).
-
The marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 19 November 2019, later challenged and remanded but still in effect.
Issues
-
Whether the right to residence under Section 17 PWDVA survives after a divorce?
-
Can the daughter-in-law claim continued possession in her matrimonial home after dissolution of marriage?
-
Does financial contribution by the wife give her any proprietary or occupancy rights in such cases?
-
Was the eviction arbitrary or contrary to principles of equity?
Held
-
A woman has no enforceable right of residence under Section 17 PWDVA after divorce, unless a specific law grants such a right.
-
There is a subsisting domestic relationship.
-
In this case No domestic relationship exists as the marriage stood dissolved. Therefore, the foundational requirement under Section 17 fails.
-
The daughter-in-law's right to stay in the house ceased with the divorce.
-
Contribution claims cannot be converted into ownership or possession rights in absence of legal title.
Analysis
-
This decision clarifies the temporal limitation of Section 17 of PWDVA — the right of residence exists only during the subsistence of a domestic relationship.
-
It prevents abuse of protective legislation where the underlying relationship no longer exists.
-
It highlights that protective rights under PWDVA do not override ownership rights, especially when will and succession laws are in play.
-
It reinforces the principle that contribution to property must be legally backed by documentary evidence and statutory entitlement.
-
It recognizes that pending appeal against divorce does not automatically recreate a domestic relationship.