Can wife right to residence at her in laws property is permanent?

Your parents have earned and purchased their hard earned property. You get married and your wife started creating toxic environment in the property. You shifted from your parent’s property also, still your wife continues to live at the property of your parents.

Your parent’s health also starts to deteriorated and you as well as your family start facing all the false matrimonial cases. Your parents only want a peaceful environment and their dignity as your wife and parents cannot live together.
But wife asserts her right to residence in the shared accommodation with your parents and law also protects this. What is the remedy?

At this old age will your parents continue to bear the torture and keep on suffering or they have some legal remedy.
Senior citizens do have right to live with dignity, enjoy their property and right to enjoy peaceful environment. Yes your wife has rights but so do people who are elderly. The law equates both rights together.
So how the law balances both the rights is clear in the Judgment of Delhi High Court Sonia Mehra Vs. Romy Mehra and Ors. passed by Delhi High Court dated 08.12.2025

Here the elderly couple were facing similar situation as mentioned above and were living in acrinomious environment. The wife does not wish to vacate the premises even if the husband has already shifted from his parents house. the wife did not joined the husband.

Feeling helpless the senior citizen parents filed a civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction to evict wife. The court under order 39 R 1 and 2 of CPC finding that the environment in the house has become toxic and in order to further prevent the damage to the health of the parents and minor children the court ordered eviction of the wife but also made provision of monthly rent of Rs 2.5 lakhs per month.

It is also important to mention that the above mentioned order passed by the court was on the basis of court counsellor who visited the premises and court counsellor along with the police reported that the environment acrimonious and toxic. There were emotional and aggressive conduct, including breaking objects at home and engaging in loud arguments. The wife also admits this position so as the old and ailing parents.

Wife aggrieved by the order approached the high court. Now the question before the high court was whether order was a final order instead of an interim order? secondly whether the order is on equities meaning if section 17 of DV act(right to residence ) is defeated?

The arguments on behalf of the counsel of the wife were that the order of eviction is a final order as it decided the suit itself and the result of the order is eviction. The wife who has a right of residence under s. 17 is defeated by ordering her eviction. Thus her rights are effected without considering evidence. emphasis was given on judgement of Dorab cawasji Warden V. Coomi Sorab Warden 1990(2)SC 117.

The counsel also argued that under S.17 of DV act the wife has a residence rights in shared household and same has been defeated which is held in Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja MANU/SC/0767/2020. The same right cannot be rejected at interim stage.

The single judge could also have adopted an approach of peaceful cohabitation arrangement in same property rather than eviction.

Overall the order impacted the substantive rights of the wife and minor children even at interlocutory stage.
The counsel of the respondent on the other hand argued that old and ailing parents have right to peaceful cohabitation they are suffering from Parkinson disease and acrimonious environment is harmful.

The order passed by the Ld. single judge is in line to prevent further harm and balance of convenience is in the favour of the old parents.

Further the order passed by the court was on material such as counsellor and police reports which affirmed that there is toxic environment in the suit property. Further the order is a protective order to protect peace and sanity. Even though wife is protected under s. 17 still the coexistence in same household is practically not feasible.

Further the counsel submits that the order is an interim arrangements and rights and contention of wife are still protective. The nature of the order is preventive order rather than a substantive one. The rights of wife are protected under alternate arrangements. Further there are property rights of senior citizens also and they are entitled to enjoy their property peacefully.

Court Observations by the court:

The court observed that rights under s. 17 of domestic violence act are not permanent or absolute and wife cannot claim a permanent right to reside at inlaws place. In the present case the rights of the wife are safeguarded by suitable alternative accommodation under section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV act. the statue does not compel senior citizens endure toxic and hostile environment.

The PWDV does not override dignity of senior citizens who are entitled for peaceful living in their own property.
In the present case there is an adequate arrangement of alternative accommodation which is to be provided by the parents apart from maintenance to wife and children. the arrangement strike balance between the competing interests of wife as well as senior citizen parents.

Further there exist evidence of hostile environment and deteriorating health condition of the parents.
Wife only right to reside at a particular property is curtailed and not her right to resident or shelter. She has been adequately compensated and there was the need to harmonise the competing interests and rights. The order was validly passed on the basis of counsellor report as well as the medical documents.

 

Conclusion
This judgement clearly shows that the rights of the parties i.e wife and senior citizens are not absolute the wife cannot till perpatutity demand the rights to stay at the property owned by the parents and parents also cannot evict the wife without undertake to make an alternate arrangements. The courts both harmonise the competing interest
Sonia_Mehra_vs_Romy_Mehra_and_Ors_08122025__DELHCDE202511122514481243COM802412