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.
Harpreet Kaur v. Manvinder SinghCore Argument
Section 17 of the DV Act must be balanced against the rights of senior citizen parents. Where the daughter has been evicted by SDM order, has refused offered accommodation, and is quarrelsome, the court should not grant a residence order.
Key Precedents
- Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414 — Supreme Court held that the concept of shared household requires the woman to have lived there with the consent of the respondent; consent can be withdrawn.
- S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (2021) 15 SCC 730 — Supreme Court held that while the right to reside is important, courts must balance the rights of all parties, including senior citizens.
Premium Argument
Subscribe to access the full argument framework with precedent mapping and submission structure.
Subscribe to AccessAlready a subscriber? Sign inBENCH 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 Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans only.
Upgrade to Annual PlanDisclaimer: This argument framework is published by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Adapt all submissions to the specific facts of your matter. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in