21 May 2026 Legal Updates

‘No Right to Permanent Alternate House for Daughter-In-Law Under DV Act’: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that neither the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 nor the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 grants a daughter-in-law the right to claim permanent alternate accommodation from her in-laws; the law only protects her right to a “shared household.”

Case Details

(a) Case Title:

• Parmal & Anr. v. The State & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Delhi High Court

(c) Bench:

• Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Facts of the Case

• The case involved an elderly couple aged 76 and 73 years who approached authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 alleging that they were being subjected to physical and mental harassment by their son and daughter-in-law while residing in the same property.
• The District Magistrate, after examining the circumstances, passed an eviction order directing the son and daughter-in-law to vacate the property. The authority observed that the senior citizens had no independent source of income and were facing serious distress within their own house.
• However, on appeal, the Divisional Commissioner upheld the eviction but additionally directed the elderly parents to provide “permanent alternate accommodation” of similar size to the daughter-in-law and grandchildren. One of the children was stated to be specially abled, which also weighed with the appellate authority.
• Aggrieved by this direction, the elderly parents approached the Delhi High Court contending that no law imposed an obligation upon in-laws to provide permanent accommodation to a daughter-in-law.

Issues Raised

• Whether the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 grants a daughter-in-law a right to permanent alternate accommodation?
• Whether the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 obligates elderly in-laws to provide lifelong accommodation to a daughter-in-law?
• Whether the right to a “shared household” can be interpreted as a right to permanent residence?
• Whether the husband alone bears the primary obligation to maintain and provide shelter to his wife and children?

Contentions of the Petitioners (Senior Citizens / In-Laws)

The elderly parents argued:

• No Statutory Duty To Provide Permanent House: Neither the DV Act nor the Senior Citizens Act creates any obligation to provide permanent alternate accommodation to the daughter-in-law.
• Right To Peaceful Living: As senior citizens, they were entitled to live peacefully in their own property without harassment.
• Shared Household ≠ Ownership Right: The daughter-in-law’s right under the DV Act is only a limited right of residence in a shared household and not a proprietary right.
• Husband Is Responsible: The legal duty to maintain and provide shelter primarily lies upon the husband, not the aged parents-in-law.

Contentions of the Daughter-In-Law

The daughter-in-law contended:

• Need For Shelter: She and her children, including one specially abled child, required stable accommodation.
• Protection Under DV Act: The DV Act recognizes a woman’s right to residence and protection against dispossession.
• Welfare Of Children: Eviction without adequate accommodation would adversely affect the children.

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

1. Right Under DV Act Is Limited To Shared Household

The Court clarified that: The Domestic Violence Act recognizes only:

• a “right of residence,”
• or a “shared household” right.

It does not create: Ownership rights, Permanent housing rights, Lifelong alternate accommodation rights.

The Court expressly observed: “There are no provisions under the DV Act or the Senior Citizens Act for the grant of permanent accommodation. What is recognised therein, is the right of shared-household.”

2. Meaning Of “Shared Household”

• The Court explained that: Shared Household means: A residence where parties lived together in a domestic relationship.
• It is: a protective right, not a transfer of ownership.
• Thus: A daughter-in-law may seek temporary residence protection, But cannot demand permanent proprietary accommodation from in-laws.

3. Primary Responsibility Lies On Husband

• The Court reiterated an important family law principle: The husband bears the primary legal and moral duty to: maintain his wife, provide shelter, support children.
• The Court held that: In-laws cannot indefinitely shoulder this burden merely because the marriage relationship exists.

4. Rights Of Senior Citizens Must Also Be Protected

• The Court balanced: rights of the daughter-in-law, with: Dignity and peaceful living rights of elderly parents.
• The Court noted: The relationship had become acrimonious, cohabitation had become impossible, continued shared residence was harmful to the elderly couple.
• The judgment emphasized that: Senior citizens also enjoy protection under Article 21.

5. Harmonious Interpretation Of DV Act & Senior Citizens Act

• The Court harmoniously interpreted: Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
• The Court held: Both statutes must coexist, one cannot nullify the protections granted by the other.
• Thus daughter-in-law’s residence rights cannot completely override senior citizens’ right to peaceful possession of property.

6. Permanent Accommodation Not Contemplated By Statute

The Court found that the appellate authority exceeded statutory limits by directing: “permanent alternate accommodation.”

The Court held:

• such a direction has no legal basis,
• and effectively creates a right not provided by Parliament.

This reflects: Principle Of Statutory Interpretation

Courts cannot add words or rights into statutes that the legislature never intended.

7. Equitable Balancing By The Court

While removing the permanent accommodation direction, the Court still protected the daughter-in-law by ordering:

• ₹25,000 per month towards shared household expenses,
• ₹5,000 additional maintenance.

The Court also granted: Four months’ advance payment, liberty to restore possession if payments stop.

Thus, the Court attempted: balance, fairness, practical justice.

Final Verdict

• The Delhi High Court modified the appellate authority’s order.
• It held that: no permanent alternate accommodation can be demanded under:  DV Act, or the Senior Citizens Act.
• The Court directed the in-laws to pay: ₹25,000 monthly towards shared household, ₹5,000 monthly maintenance.
• Four months’ advance payment was ordered within 45 days.
• The daughter-in-law and children were directed to vacate the property thereafter.
• The Court clarified: if payments stop, the daughter-in-law may seek restoration of possession.

Legal Principles Established

1. Right To Shared Household Is Not Ownership Right

• The DV Act grants: Right to residence, not ownership, not permanent accommodation rights.

2. Husband Bears Primary Maintenance Duty

• The Court reaffirmed: husband is primarily responsible for: shelter, maintenance, family support.
• In-laws are not automatically liable indefinitely.

3. Senior Citizens’ Rights Are Constitutionally Protected

• The judgment balances: rights of women under DV Act, with rights of elderly persons under Senior Citizens Act.

4. Harmonious Construction Of Statutes

• The Court interpreted: DV Act, Senior Citizens Act, together harmoniously.
• Neither statute completely overrides the other.

5. Courts Cannot Create Rights Beyond Statute

• The Court reiterated: Judges interpret laws, they cannot create new statutory rights.
• Permanent accommodation was not contemplated by Parliament.

6. Shared Household Protection Is Conditional & Contextual

Residence rights depend upon:

• domestic relationship,
• facts of cohabitation,
• balancing of competing rights.