Latest Judgement

1. INTRODUCTION
   The decision of Delhi High Court underscores the temporal nature of protection orders and the dependency of residence rights on the continuation of a valid domestic relationship.
2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
   The case before the Delhi High Court arose from a divorced woman’s claim to residence in her former matrimonial home under Section 17 of the DV Act. The woman argued that the DV Act grants her the right to reside in the “shared household” irrespective of ownership or title. However, the respondent contended that once the marital relationship had been legally dissolved, the woman ceased to be an “aggrieved person” in terms of the DV Act, thereby disentitling her from claiming residence.
3. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
   A “domestic relationship,” in turn, is defined under Section 2(f) as a relationship between two persons who live, or have at any point lived, together in a shared household, when they are related by marriage, consanguinity, or similar arrangements.
4. THE COURT’S REASONING
   Once a divorce decree is passed, the legal foundation of such a relationship ceases, thereby extinguishing the right to reside in the shared household. The Court held that granting a divorced woman a right to residence without a specific statutory mandate would extend the DV Act beyond its intended scope. However, the Court also observed that if the divorced woman can demonstrate a contrary statutory right—for example, under a maintenance order, a divorce decree, or property law—such a claim may still be maintainable.
5. IMPLICATIONS OF THE JUDGMENT
   This ruling provides critical clarity on the interplay between residence rights and divorce. It signals that the DV Act is designed to protect women during the subsistence of domestic relationships, not to create perpetual claims to residence post-divorce.
   At the same time, the judgment leaves room for women to pursue remedies through other statutory avenues, such as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or property rights under personal laws. Thus, the Court balances the need to protect women from destitution against the need to prevent undue encroachment on property rights after the dissolution of marriage.
6. CONCLUSION
   The judgment passed by the Delhi High Court reaffirms that under the Domestic Violence Act right to residence is not absolute and it comes to an end once divorce is granted, unless any other law protects the residential rights. This interpretation reinforces the legislative intent of the DV Act as a protective, not perpetual, statute. Moving forward, this ruling may shape how courts assess post-divorce residence claims and could prompt broader discussions on legislative reform to address gaps in protection for divorced women facing housing insecurity.
7. This article has been researched and written by Advocate Aarun Chanda, practicing divorce law in Mumbai and Pune. This article is intended solely for academic purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified lawyer/advocate specializing in divorce cases for professional legal guidance.

Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.