Ms. Kaur, the Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja held that the daughter's right to reside in the parental home is not absolute. It depends on factors like whether she lived there with consent and whether she has another home. You have been living there, but your parents have now withdrawn their consent. What do you say?

My Lord, Satish Chander Ahuja does not make the right conditional on continuing parental consent. The Court in that case was primarily concerned with the rights of a daughter-in-law in the husband's parental home. Even in that context, the Court held that the shared household must be a household where the woman has lived with the consent of the respondent. Here, the appellant lived in the parental home from birth — that consent existed for decades. The respondents cannot unilaterally revoke that consent to evict her. The DV Act was enacted precisely to prevent women from being rendered homeless by a change in the whims of family members. Withdrawal of consent after a complaint of domestic violence is not a valid ground to deny residence.

The SDM has passed an eviction order under the Senior Citizens Act. That is a competent court's order. Are you asking us to ignore it?

My Lord, the appellant does not ask this Court to ignore the SDM order. She asks that the SDM order be read harmoniously with the DV Act. The SDM's jurisdiction under the Senior Citizens Act is to protect senior citizens from being evicted by their children. That is a different purpose. The DV Act is to protect women from domestic violence and to ensure they are not rendered homeless. Where both statutes apply — the parents are senior citizens and the daughter is an aggrieved woman — the court must balance. The Sessions Court acknowledged this balancing requirement but failed to properly apply it. The appellant has no source of income and no other home. The SDM's eviction order, if given effect, would render her homeless. That cannot be the intention of Parliament when it enacted the DV Act. The SDM order cannot nullify the clear mandate of Section 17 of the DV Act.

Your father is offering you Rs. 14,000-15,000 per month and paying for rented accommodation. Why is that not sufficient? Why do you insist on living in a house where clearly no one wants you?

My Lord, the DV Act does not permit a woman to be bought off. The right to reside in the shared household is not a right that can be monetised and extinguished. The appellant has lived in that house since her birth. Her entire identity, her support network, her memories are tied to that house. Being forced to live in a rented accommodation — which could be terminated at any time — is not the same as having a secure home. Moreover, accepting rent money from her abusers would make her dependent on them financially while also being excluded from the family home. The DV Act intends to give women a real, secure right to housing, not a monetary compensation in lieu of housing. If Parliament had intended that offers of rent could defeat a Section 19 application, it would have said so. It did not.

The trial court noted that the respondents provided a rented accommodation for 7 months, paying Rs. 16,500 per month, but you did not reside there. You refused to accept what was offered. Why should the court now grant you residence?

My Lord, the offer of rented accommodation was not made in good faith. The appellant was being asked to move to a rented property of the respondents' choice — likely far from her support network, of poor quality, and at the mercy of her abusers. Moreover, accepting rent would have been an implicit admission that she has no right to live in her own home. The appellant refused because she wanted her legal rights, not charity. The DV Act does not require an aggrieved woman to accept substandard alternative housing as a precondition to asserting her right to reside in the shared household. The respondents are not doing the appellant a favour — they are fulfilling their legal obligation under Section 19. The appellant is entitled to the primary remedy: residence in the shared household itself.

For PetitionerFamily Premium

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.

Harpreet Kaur v. Manvinder Singh

Core Argument

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. The appellant, being an unmarried daughter, has a legitimate right to live in her ancestral property.

Key Precedents

Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414 — Supreme Court held that the concept of shared household includes the parental home of the husband or father, and a daughter has the right to reside there even without legal title.
S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (2021) 15 SCC 730 — Supreme Court held that the right to reside in shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act is enforceable even against parents-in-law.
Vimlesh v. State of U.P. (2020) 6 ADJ 781 — Allahabad High Court held that an unmarried daughter cannot be evicted from the shared household by her parents under the Senior Citizens Act when she is in a domestic relationship.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in