Harpreet Kaur v. Manvinder Singh
Key Issue / Question of Law
Whether a daughter can claim a right to residence under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in her parental home (shared household) after being evicted by an order of the SDM, where her father and brother oppose her residence and have offered alternative rented accommodation and monthly maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi
The right to reside in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not absolute. The court must balance the rights of the aggrieved woman with the rights of senior citizen parents and other family members. Where an eviction order has already been passed against the woman by the SDM, and where the respondents have provided or offered alternative rented accommodation and monthly maintenance, the court may decline to grant a residence order under Section 19 of the DV Act. The conduct of the aggrieved woman — including quarrelsome nature, filing false complaints, and refusing to accept offered accommodation — is relevant in determining whether to exercise discretion under Section 19.
Holding / Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The court affirmed the trial court's order dated 19.10.2023 which had rejected the appellant's application under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking a residence order. The court held that the appellant (daughter) had no established right in the property as no transfer document existed in her favour, an eviction order had been passed against her by the SDM, and the respondents had offered alternative rented accommodation and monthly payment of Rs. 14,000-15,000. The impugned order found no illegality, impropriety or flaw.
Background & Facts
Harpreet Kaur, the appellant, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her brother (respondent No. 1), mother (respondent No. 2), and father (respondent No. 3), alleging domestic violence. She sought various reliefs including a residence order under Section 19 of the DV Act. During the pendency of the proceedings, she was dispossessed from her parental home (shared household) pursuant to an eviction order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Saket. The appellant then filed an application seeking residence in her parents' property. The learned Magistrate (Mahila Court-03, South District) dismissed the application under Section 19 of the DV Act on 19 October 2023. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The respondents contested the appeal, arguing that the appellant was of quarrelsome nature, had filed false complaints, and that they had already provided rented accommodation for 7 months and were paying Rs. 14,000 per month to her.
Statutes Involved
- Section 19, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Empowers the court to pass residence orders, including directing the respondent to secure alternative accommodation for the aggrieved woman or restraining dispossession from the shared household
- Section 17, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Confers upon every aggrieved woman a right to reside in the shared household, regardless of her legal entitlement to the property
- Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Provides for filing of complaint before the Magistrate alleging domestic violence and seeking reliefs under Sections 17 to 23
- Section 29, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Provides for appeal to the Court of Session against any order made by the Magistrate
- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — Referenced for balancing rights of senior citizens with rights of aggrieved women
Full Analysis
Premium Content
Subscribe to access the full analysis, practical implications, and related case mapping.
Subscribe — ₹99/monthAlready a subscriber? Sign inAdvocate's Note — Agarawal Associates
Professional insight for advocates on how to deploy this judgment in practice...
Subscribe to access the Advocate's Note.
Key Conditional Rule / Important Caveat
This judgment applies ONLY to claims for residence under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 where (a) an eviction order has already been passed against the aggrieved woman by the SDM under the Senior Citizens Act or other proceedings, (b) the respondents have offered or provided alternative rented accommodation, and (c) the aggrieved woman has refused such accommodation or has conducted herself in a quarrelsome manner. The judgment does NOT apply where no eviction order exists, where the parents are not senior citizens, or where the aggrieved woman has no alternative source of housing. The balancing of rights under the DV Act and Senior Citizens Act is fact-specific and does not create an automatic rule that parents always prevail over daughters.
Courtroom Arguments
For Petitioner
Daughter Has Right to Reside in Ancestral Home — Harpreet Kaur
Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 confers an unqualified right to reside in the shared household, including the parental home, regardless of legal title.
For Respondent
Right to Residence Not Absolute Against Parents — Harpreet Kaur
Section 17 of the DV Act must be balanced against the rights of senior citizen parents.
More Family Law Judgments
View All →Found this useful? Share it with your colleagues.
One tap sends the case name, citation, key issue and link.
Take This Further in Court
2 courtroom argument frameworks available for this case — full submission structure, bench question simulator, and opposition rebuttals.
Disclaimer: This summary is prepared by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For legal matters, consult a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in