The right of a woman to reside in the shared household is one of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005's most litigated promises — and its boundary runs through the property records of parents-in-law. In Smt. Maya Devi v. Smt. Ritika (CS SCJ No. 1536/18, Court of Ms Neha Pandey, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-01 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, decided 29 August 2026), a Delhi trial court partly decreed a mother-in-law's suit, directing her daughter-in-law to vacate the mother-in-law's self-acquired Paschim Vihar flat within two months, while acknowledging that “every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household” — a right that, on these facts, had to be provided by the husband, not carved out of his mother's property.
A familiar Delhi triangle: owner, son, daughter-in-law
The plaintiff purchased flat 224-C, Janta Flats, Paschim Vihar in 2018 in her own name. Her son had married the defendant in 2010; the couple separated in 2012, reunited after Family Court intervention in July 2018 — and within months the son left again, in October 2018. The mother terminated her daughter-in-law\'s licence to occupy the flat by notice of 31 October 2018. The daughter-in-law stayed. The suit for mandatory and permanent injunction and damages followed, and wound its way to judgment eight years after filing.
What the court decided
Crucially, the court engaged with the DV Act rather than brushing past it: the right of residence in a shared household is real, but on these facts it was a right to be provided for by the husband — who had abandoned the defendant — and not a charge on the mother-in-law\'s independent property.
The doctrinal balance
The law here sits between two protective impulses. The DV Act protects a woman from being rendered homeless by the family she married into; senior citizens\' and property law protect an owner — often an elderly parent — from having her home annexed to her son\'s failed marriage. The reconciliation the courts have built looks like this:
Practical notes
For parents-in-law: keep the paper trail — title documents, the licence or permissive character of the occupation, and a clear termination notice. Claims for damages need rent evidence, not assertion.
For daughters-in-law: the durable remedies run against the husband: residence orders, alternative accommodation, maintenance, and stridhan recovery. Contesting the owner\'s title suit without simultaneously pursuing those remedies wins time but not security.
Trial court decisions do not bind other courts, but they show how Delhi\'s district judiciary is applying the Supreme Court\'s shared-household jurisprudence day to day. Every such case turns on its own title documents and living arrangements; advice should be taken on the specific facts.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a daughter-in-law have a right to live in her in-laws' house?
Not an absolute one. The DV Act right to reside attaches to the "shared household", and the Supreme Court has held that a property belonging exclusively to the in-laws can qualify only in defined circumstances; even then, owners can seek eviction through due process, with the woman's protection often taking the form of alternative accommodation secured from the husband.
Who owes the wife a residence — the husband or his parents?
The husband. The maintenance and residence obligations under matrimonial law and the DV Act are primarily his. In this case the court held the daughter-in-law's statutory rights "required provision by her husband, not the mother-in-law", whose self-acquired flat could not be burdened with the son's obligations.
Can the owner in-law simply throw the daughter-in-law out?
No. Eviction must come through due process — a civil suit or, for senior citizens, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act machinery — and courts examine any pending DV proceedings and interim residence orders before decreeing possession. Here the court granted a mandatory injunction with two months' time, but declined damages for want of proof.
What should a woman facing such a suit do?
Assert her rights in the right forum and against the right person: seek a residence order or alternative-accommodation direction against the husband under Section 19 DV Act, interim maintenance, and, where the property genuinely is a shared household, contest that issue on evidence. A defence resting solely on possession of the in-law's flat is fragile.