The Patiala House Court has ruled that a woman’s right to reside in a shared household under the Domestic Violence Act cannot be treated as an unlimited right to remain in the same home, while directing that she cannot be evicted until suitable alternative accommodation is arranged.
The order came in an appeal filed by Vasant Vihar resident Shivani Verma in a matrimonial dispute involving multiple cases within the family. Additional Sessions Judge Gomti Manocha said the court must balance a woman’s right to residence with the right of elderly parents-in-law to live peacefully, according to the court report.
The court held that where serious matrimonial disputes have led to several legal proceedings, requiring all parties to continue living in the same house may not be appropriate. In such circumstances, the wife’s residence rights can be protected through alternative accommodation rather than by requiring her to remain in the existing shared household.
However, the court also imposed safeguards against homelessness. It ordered that Verma must not be removed from the present house until alternative accommodation is arranged for her. The trial court has been directed to determine the rent payable by her husband within four weeks.
Once the rent is fixed, the husband will have to pay six months’ rent in advance. Verma will then be required to vacate the existing house within two weeks of receiving that amount. The court further directed that the alternative accommodation should be comparable to the standard of the current residence.
The husband had earlier offered to pay rent of Rs 2 lakh per month for alternative accommodation. The lower court may consider that offer while determining the appropriate rent, the order said.
The dispute follows the marriage of Shivani Verma and Vedanta in 2010. Their relationship deteriorated around 2023, after which the couple began living in separate portions of the same house. Verma sought interim protection to continue residing in the shared household under the Domestic Violence Act.
A women’s court had declined to grant that relief, citing an eviction order issued under legislation concerning senior citizens. Verma then challenged the decision before the sessions court.
The sessions court allowed the appeal in part. Its ruling preserves the principle that a woman cannot be left without a home, while also recognising that residence rights do not necessarily require continued occupation of the same property when co-residence has become untenable. The immediate implementation will depend on the trial court’s rent determination and the subsequent payment of the advance amount.
