In Ms. Anjali Rathore v. Neeraj Rathore & Ors. (W.P.(CRL) 3508/2026, decided 6 November 2026), Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court declined to decide anything on merits — and yet delivered exactly what the petitioner needed: a firm outer limit of four weeks for the Magistrate to decide her pending residence application under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, with an interim freeze on any alienation of the shared household.
The case in one view
| Case | Ms. Anjali Rathore v. Neeraj Rathore & Ors., W.P.(CRL) 3508/2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Justice Sachin Datta |
| Decided | 6 November 2026 |
| Provisions | Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Article 226; Section 528 BNSS |
| Outcome | Section 19 residence application to be decided within four weeks; respondents restrained from creating third-party rights in the shared household until disposal |
A woman without shelter, an application without a date
The petitioner’s circumstances were stark. She had suffered burn injuries over more than eighty per cent of her body in an incident of April 2025. She alleged that on 7 April 2026 she was assaulted and shut out of the shared household in Badarpur. She then filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act read with Sections 18, 20 and 22, together with an application for a residence order under Section 19, registered as CT Case No. 1183/2026 before the Mahila Court at Saket.
The Magistrate had already recorded a prima facie finding of a domestic relationship and a shared household, and had issued notice. But the residence application itself remained undecided — while the petitioner and her two minor children remained without shelter. It was that gap between a prima facie finding and an operative order that brought her to the High Court.
What the High Court directed
The sixty-day mandate, taken seriously
The legal anchor of the order is Section 12(5) of the DV Act, which requires the Magistrate to endeavour to dispose of a DV application within sixty days of the first hearing. In practice, that timeline is honoured more in the breach; interim applications for residence and maintenance routinely pend for months. The High Court’s order treats the provision as what it is — a legislative judgment that reliefs under this statute lose their meaning if they come late. A residence order granted after a year of homelessness protects very little.
What practitioners can take from the order
First, where an interim application under the DV Act is pending beyond the statutory horizon, a focused petition seeking expedition — rather than a merits challenge — is often the fastest and least risky route. Second, a prayer for restraint on alienation of the shared household should accompany any such petition; without it, a favourable residence order can be rendered academic by a transfer executed mid-proceedings. Third, a structured pleading schedule with a default clause is worth seeking in terms, because it converts a general direction to “expedite” into something a trial court can actually enforce against a non-cooperating party.
For respondents, the order is an equally clear signal: once a prima facie domestic relationship is recorded, delay is not a defence strategy the system will indulge, and dealings with the shared household during the pendency of a residence application invite restraint orders of exactly this kind.
Frequently Asked Questions
How quickly must a DV Act application be decided?
Section 12(5) of the DV Act directs the Magistrate to endeavour to dispose of every application under Section 12 within sixty days of the first hearing. The provision is directory in form but courts treat it as a serious legislative command, and the Delhi High Court relied on it here to set a four-week deadline for the pending residence application.
What can be done if a residence application is left pending?
The aggrieved person may approach the High Court — under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 528 BNSS — seeking a direction for expeditious disposal. The High Court will not decide the application itself, but it can fix a timeline, structure the pleadings schedule, and protect the subject property in the interim.
Can the shared household be sold while a DV case is pending?
In this case the High Court restrained the respondents from creating any third-party rights in the shared household until the residence application is decided. Such interim protection prevents the relief under Section 19 from being defeated by a sale or transfer executed during the proceedings.
Does an expedition order mean the woman has won?
No. The High Court expressly clarified that it expressed no view on merits. The Magistrate remains free to allow or dismiss the Section 19 application; what the order guarantees is a decision within a defined time, not a particular outcome.