Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 gives every woman in a domestic relationship the right to reside in the shared household. What it does not do, the High Court of Delhi has reiterated, is convert that right into permanent tenure against the property's owner. In KN v. AN, RFA 16/2022, decided by judgment dated 6 August 2026 (2026:DHC:6802), Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a daughter-in-law's appeal against a possession decree obtained by her father-in-law, holding that the statutory embargo is not upon eviction, but upon eviction otherwise than by due process — while securing the wife's residence right against the person actually bound by it: her husband.
The litigation
The appellant had lived in the suit property — her matrimonial home — since her marriage in 2009. The property belonged to her father-in-law. When the marriage broke down and litigation multiplied, the father-in-law sued for possession, contending that the daughter-in-law occupied as a licensee whose permission had been withdrawn; the husband had meanwhile moved to rented premises. The trial court decreed possession, and the daughter-in-law appealed, resting her defence on the shared-household protection of the DV Act.
The Court\'s reasoning
The judgment works through the DV Act\'s residence architecture with precision. Section 17(1) confers a right of residence simpliciter — it neither creates nor enlarges any proprietary interest in the shared household. Section 17(2) then protects the woman from eviction or exclusion save in accordance with procedure established by law. The embargo, the Court held, is therefore not upon eviction as such, but upon eviction otherwise than by due process. Where the owner sues, the woman is heard, and a decree lawfully follows, the process the statute demands has been observed; Section 17 is not a charter of indefeasible occupation against a third-party owner.
The second strand is equally important: the right of residence and maintenance arises out of the marital bond and is primarily enforceable against the husband. The DV Act deliberately makes the husband responsible for securing his wife\'s residence — including, under Section 19(f), by providing alternative accommodation of the same level — rather than freezing the ownership rights of parents-in-law who own the house.
The balance actually struck
Owner\'s decree upheld
The father-in-law\'s suit for possession, lawfully tried and decreed, satisfied the due-process requirement of Section 17(2). The appeal was dismissed.
Wife\'s residence secured
The husband was directed to provide alternative accommodation or pay ₹35,000 per month towards rent until the matrimonial proceedings conclude.
No proprietary windfall
The residence right protected the wife from homelessness — it did not convert her occupation into a species of ownership over her in-laws\' property.
What practitioners should take from it
For women resisting dispossession, the message is to invoke the machinery early and precisely: a Section 19 residence order, or interim protection under Section 23, restrains extra-legal eviction and can compel the husband to secure equivalent accommodation. Resistance to a properly constituted possession suit, by contrast, must engage with ownership realities — where the house belongs exclusively to a parent-in-law and no shared-household character survives scrutiny, the sustainable claim is alternative accommodation at the husband\'s cost, and quantification becomes the true battleground.
For senior citizens who own their homes, the judgment confirms that ownership retains meaning: the civil court remains open, and a decree obtained after fair trial is itself the due process the DV Act contemplates. What remains impermissible for everyone is self-help — changed locks, removed belongings, or eviction by intimidation invite immediate orders under the DV Act regardless of who owns the property.
The chamber of Advocate Manish Jha appears in domestic violence, matrimonial and property proceedings before the District Courts of Delhi, the High Court of Delhi and the Supreme Court of India. This article is for general information; it is not legal advice and does not create an advocate-client relationship.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a wife have a right to stay in her in-laws' house?
She has a right to reside in the shared household under Section 17(1) DV Act, and Section 17(2) protects her from being evicted or excluded except in accordance with procedure established by law. But the right is a right of residence simpliciter — it creates no ownership interest, and where the property belongs to a parent-in-law, the owner may seek possession through a properly constituted civil suit.
What counts as "due process" for this purpose?
A lawful adjudication — typically a civil suit for possession in which the woman is heard, her defences (including her shared-household claim) are considered, and a decree follows. What Section 17(2) forbids is high-handed dispossession: lock-outs, forcible removal, or eviction by pressure without any judicial process.
Was the wife left without protection in this case?
No. The Court anchored the residence and maintenance obligation where the DV Act places it — on the husband. He was directed to provide alternative accommodation or pay ₹35,000 per month towards rent until the matrimonial proceedings conclude, so the decree for possession did not translate into homelessness.
How does this sit with residence orders under Section 19?
Section 19 empowers a Magistrate to pass residence orders, including restraining dispossession or directing the respondent to secure alternative accommodation of the same standard. The judgment confirms the two tracks coexist: the owner's civil remedy for possession, and the aggrieved woman's statutory remedy to have her residence secured — ultimately at her husband's cost.