Court Upholds Discretionary Nature of Residence Orders Under Domestic Violence Act
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Reena Grover, seeking re-entry into her matrimonial home located in Green Park, South Delhi. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, emphasizes the discretionary nature of residence orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and highlights the importance of balancing the rights of the aggrieved woman with those of other occupants and owners.
Reena Grover, who married Ramesh Grover in 1964, had resided at the Green Park property for over 30 years. However, in April 2023, she moved to her daughter's house in Safdarjung Enclave for medical treatment. Upon recovery, she attempted to return to her matrimonial home but was denied entry. Subsequently, she filed an application under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act, seeking a residence order to re-enter the Green Park property.
The trial court, and later the appellate court, dismissed her application, observing that she was residing in an alternate accommodation owned by Ramesh Grover. The courts noted that the relief under Section 19 is protective and aims to prevent rooflessness rather than reinstatement into a voluntarily abandoned residence.
The High Court upheld these findings, ruling that the Green Park property does not qualify as a "shared household" under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, given Reena Grover's voluntary move to Safdarjung Enclave. The court emphasized that the Act is designed to prevent dispossession and provide protection, not to compel reinstatement into a previously occupied residence, especially when suitable alternative accommodation is available.
Justice Dudeja highlighted that the petition appeared to stem from an inter-family property dispute rather than genuine domestic violence. The court concluded that granting the relief sought would convert a property dispute into a domestic violence proceeding, which is beyond the legislative intent of the Act.
The judgment underscores the court's cautious approach in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reiterating that inherent powers must be used to prevent misuse of legal proceedings. The petition was dismissed, with the court finding no perversity or jurisdictional error in the lower courts' orders.
Bottom Line:
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not confer an indefeasible right to insist upon residence in a particular property when suitable alternate accommodation is available and offered. Relief under Section 19 of the Act is discretionary and aims to provide protection against dispossession rather than reinstatement into a residence voluntarily abandoned.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Sections 19, 2(s); Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482
Reena Grover v. Sh. Ramesh Grover, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2850840
