Delhi High Court on Eviction of Daughter-in-Law from Shared Household.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court upheld an interim order directing a daughter-in-law to vacate the matrimonial home owned exclusively by her parents-in-law, holding that the right of residence under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a protective right and not an indefeasible right to reside in a particular property. The Court held that where cohabitation creates a toxic environment and adversely affects the health and dignity of senior citizens, eviction can be ordered at the interim stage, provided adequate alternate accommodation and financial safeguards are secured for the woman and minor children.

Background:

• The Appellant, Sonia Mehra, was married to Respondent No.3 on 03.03.2009 and resided in the suit property at Ansal Villas, Satbari, Chhatarpur, New Delhi.

• Two children were born from the marriage – Prisha Mehra (17.07.2010) and Krishiv Mehra (11.08.2016).

• Marital disputes arose leading to proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and registration of FIR No. 592/2023 under Sections 498A/406/354/506/509/377/34 IPC.

• Respondent Nos.1 and 2 (parents-in-law) filed CS(OS) 19/2024 seeking eviction of the Appellant from their property.

• The learned Single Judge, by order dated 09.09.2025, directed the Appellant to vacate the premises and granted alternate accommodation.

• The said order was challenged in FAO(OS) 119/2025.

Key Issues:

• Whether eviction could be ordered at an interlocutory stage.

• Whether the right of residence under Section 17 of the PWDV Act is absolute.

• Whether the rights of senior citizen parents-in-law prevail over the daughter-in-law’s claim.

• Whether the welfare of the minor children was adequately considered.

Court’s Observations:

• The right of residence under Section 17 of the PWDV Act is a right of protection, not ownership and cannot override the rights of senior citizens to live peacefully in their own property.

• The counsellor’s report and medical records showed that the atmosphere in the household had become toxic, adversely affecting the health of Respondent No.2, who was suffering from Parkinson’s disease.

• Interim mandatory injunctions can be granted in exceptional circumstances where irreparable harm is established.

• Adequate safeguards were provided to the Appellant, including alternate accommodation, payment of rent, security deposit, brokerage, maintenance, and school expenses of the children.

• The welfare of the minor children lay in removing them from a high-conflict environment.

Ratio Decidendi:

A daughter-in-law’s right of residence in a shared household under Section 17 of the PWDV Act does not give her an indefeasible right to continue residing in property exclusively owned by parents-in-law when such residence becomes detrimental to their health and dignity, provided alternate suitable accommodation is secured.

Final Decision:

The appeal was dismissed.

The interim directions for eviction and alternate accommodation were affirmed in full.

Compliance period was directed to be reckoned from 01 January 2026.

Citation: 2025:DHC:9876-DB

Case: Sonia Mehra v. Romy Mehra & Ors.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Anil Kshetarpal & Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Date of Decision: 08 December 2025

Appeal No.: FAO(OS) 119/2025