In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court held that an aggrieved woman under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) does not have an indefeasible or automatic right to re-enter a matrimonial home which she had voluntarily abandoned, where suitable alternate accommodation of the same standard is available. 

In the case of X v. Y, an 81-year-old woman approached the Court seeking a residence order under Sections 19 and 23 of the DV Act to allow her re-entry into her former matrimonial property. The bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja noted that the petitioner had moved out of the matrimonial home for medical reasons and had taken up residence in another property owned by her husband. She was not left roofless and had access to alternate accommodation. 

The Court reiterated that the relief under Section 19 is discretionary and equitable, aimed at protecting women from becoming shelterless, and is not intended to confer a right to inhabit any particular past residence when alternative housing of similar standard exists. Forcing restoration would disturb settled possession and convert a protective statute into a rule for re-entry into every past residence, going beyond the legislative intent of the Act. 

The petition was accordingly dismissed, underscoring the need to balance the rights of the aggrieved woman with those of current occupants and owners.