In a significant judgment Pronounced on January 25, 2024, the Delhi High Court addressed the right of residence in cases of matrimonial discord. The case involved an appeal against the rejection of the appellant-wife’s application seeking the right of residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Background
The appellant-wife approached the court seeking the right of residence after her application under the DV Act was dismissed by the Family Court. The court had rejected her claim to the shared household, leading to the present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Key Points
The appellant-wife argued that she had been subjected to cruelty and desertion by the respondent-husband, justifying her claim to the right of residence. The dispute centered around the definition of a “shared household” and the property in Punjabi Bagh Extension.
Court's Decision
The High Court observed that the appellant failed to establish House No. 4/12, Punjabi Bagh Extension, as a shared household. The judgment emphasized the need for factual evidence supporting the claim, considering the legal provisions under Sections 17 and section 19 of the DV Act.
Key Takeaways
The court clarified that the right of residence is not solely contingent on facing domestic violence, as highlighted in the recent case of Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi. The judgment underscores the importance of establishing shared household status and factual details in such disputes.
Conclusion
This ruling provides insights into the interpretation of the right of residence in cases of domestic discord. It highlights the significance of presenting clear evidence to support claims under the DV Act.
Download Judgment
Click above to download this Judgment in the case titled MAT.APP.(F.C.) 80/2023. It can serve as a valuable resource for legal reference.
