A Wife’s Right to Live in the Matrimonial Home in Hyderabad: The Shared Household

This guide is for married women in Hyderabad and Telangana who are told to leave the husband’s or the in-laws’ house, and for in-laws, often senior citizens, who want a daughter-in-law to leave a house they own. It explains the right to reside in the “shared household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, residence orders, how the Supreme Court’s view changed in 2020, how the Senior Citizens Act fits in, and where cases are filed in Hyderabad.

The right to reside · What is a shared household · Residence orders · The in-laws’ side · Senior Citizens Act eviction · Where to apply in Hyderabad · Appeal, change and breach · Checklist

The right to reside

• The right: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same” (section 17(1)).
• Eviction only by law: “The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law” (section 17(2)). The Supreme Court has read this as meaning that she “can be evicted or excluded from the shared household in accordance with the procedure established by law” (Satish Chander Ahuja v Sneha Ahuja, 15 October 2020).
• A right to reside, not ownership: section 17 gives a right to live in the shared household. It does not give a share in the property.
• Who can be a respondent: as printed, section 2(q) refers to an “adult male person”. In Hiral P. Harsora v Kusum Narottamdas Harsora (6 October 2016), the Supreme Court declared that “the words “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted”, so women relatives can also be respondents. In Ahuja it said: “The respondent in a proceeding under Domestic Violence Act can be any relative of the husband.”
• Being shut out is itself covered: “economic abuse” under section 3 includes “prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.”

What counts as a shared household

Section 2(s) defines a shared household as “a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent”, whether owned or tenanted by either of them, “and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household”.

• The old view: in S.R. Batra v Taruna Batra (15 December 2006), the Supreme Court held that a house owned by the mother-in-law was not a shared household and that rights could “only be as against the husband and not against the father-in-law or mother-in-law.”
• The current view: in Ahuja (2020), a bench of three judges held that Batra “has not correctly interpreted Section 2(s) of Act, 2005 and the judgment does not lay down a correct law”, and that if the house “belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are satisfied and the said house will become a shared household.”
• Some permanency: the Court said the shared household is where she “was living at the time when application was filed or in the recent past had been excluded from the use or she is temporarily absent”, and that “Mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared household.”
• Actual residence: in Prabha Tyagi v Kamlesh Devi (12 May 2022), the Court held that “it is not mandatory for the aggrieved person to have actually lived or resided with those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled at the time of seeking relief. If a woman has the right to reside in a shared household, she can accordingly enforce her right under Section 17(1) of the D.V. Act.” It also held that a woman who “has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subjected to domestic violence” may file an application even if she is no longer in the domestic relationship when she files.

Residence orders

An aggrieved person, a Protection Officer or any other person on her behalf may apply to the Magistrate (section 12(1)). On being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, the Magistrate may pass a residence order (section 19(1)):

• (a) “restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household”;
• (b) “directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household”;
• (c) “restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides”;
• (d) restraining the respondent from alienating, disposing of or encumbering the shared household;
• (e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in it except with the Magistrate’s leave; or
• (f) “directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require”.

• Not against women for removal: “Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman.” A woman relative may be restrained under the other clauses, but cannot be ordered under clause (b) to remove herself from the house.
• Police help, rent, stridhan: the court may direct the nearest police station to give protection or assist in implementing the order (section 19(5)), impose obligations about rent and other payments (section 19(6)), and direct return of her stridhan (section 19(8)).
• Interim and ex parte orders: the Magistrate “may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper”, and, if the application prima facie discloses domestic violence or its likelihood, “may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit” (section 23).
• Timelines: the first hearing “shall not ordinarily be beyond three days” from receipt of the application, and the Magistrate “shall Endeavour to dispose of every application … within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing” (section 12(4) and (5)).
• No incident report needed first: in Prabha Tyagi, the Court held that “even in the absence of a Domestic Incident Report, a Magistrate is empowered to pass both ex parte or interim as well as a final order”.
• Other courts: reliefs under sections 18 to 22, including residence orders, “may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court, family court or a criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent” (section 26(1)).
• Time to apply: in Kamatchi v Lakshmi Narayanan (13 April 2022), the Court held that the High Court “was in error in observing that the application under Section 12 of the Act ought to have been filed within a period of one year of the alleged acts of domestic violence.” It added that, on the facts there, a gap of almost ten years was a matter the Magistrate “will certainly” consider, including “whether the allegations constitute a continuing wrong.”

See also our guide on domestic violence cases.

The in-laws’ side

• Not an absolute right: in Ahuja, the Court said “the right to residence under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law.” It added that “the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties.”
• A civil suit is not barred: the Court held that a pending DV case or a residence order “is not an embargo for initiating or continuing any civil proceedings” on the same subject, and that “A civil court is to determine the issues in civil proceedings on the basis of evidence, which has been led by the parties before the civil court.” In Ahuja itself, the Court upheld the High Court’s order sending the father-in-law’s suit back to the trial court for fresh decision.
• Changing an order: either side may apply to the Magistrate, who may alter, modify or revoke an order on “a change in the circumstances” (section 25(2)).
• Quashing: in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v Vidhi Rawal (19 May 2025), the Court said proceedings before the Magistrate “are predominantly of a civil nature”, that High Courts can quash proceedings arising from a section 12 application, but “should exercise caution and circumspection”, and that “Normally, interference under Section 482 is warranted only in the case of gross illegality or injustice.”

Senior Citizens Act eviction

Parents-in-law sometimes apply to the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which defines “maintenance” to include residence. The Supreme Court has said:

• The Tribunal may order eviction: in S. Vanitha v Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District (15 December 2020, three judges), the Court said: “The Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act 2007 may have the authority to order an eviction, if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the maintenance and protection of the senior citizen or parent.” It added: “However, this remedy can be granted only after adverting to the competing claims in the dispute.”
• Not by a summary shortcut: “the right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act 2007.” The Court said section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act “cannot be deployed to over-ride and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman’s right to a ‘shared household’ under Section 17 of the PWDV Act 2005”, and that the Tribunal should “appropriately mould reliefs” after noticing both sides’ claims.
• Vanitha on its facts: the eviction order against the daughter-in-law was set aside, her shared household claim was left to “the appropriate forum”, and the in-laws were left free to apply for alteration of maintenance.
• Eviction is not automatic: in Samtola Devi v State of Uttar Pradesh (27 March 2025), a case about a son, the Court said the Tribunal “”may order” eviction but it is not necessary and mandatory to pass an order of eviction in every case”, and that on those facts maintenance and a restraint on harassment would have served.

Which forum fits, and what is proved, depends on the facts of each family. See our guides on maintenance and gift deeds and the Senior Citizens Act.

Where to apply in Hyderabad

• Which court: the Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate where the woman “permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed”, or where the respondent resides, works or does business, or where the cause of action arose (section 27(1)). Orders “shall be enforceable throughout India” (section 27(2)).
• Hyderabad district: the official site of the Integrated Family Court, Hyderabad says the Kalpataru complex at Purani Haveli has three Family Courts “along with two (02) Metropolitan Magistrate’s Courts namely III Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court and IV Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, which are dealing with Domestic Violence Cases.”
• Forms and help: the application is in Form II of the Domestic Violence Rules, 2006, and a woman “may seek the assistance of the Protection Officer in preparing her application”. Police, Protection Officers, service providers and Magistrates who receive a complaint must tell her of her right to apply for a residence order and to free legal services (section 5).
• Police support: the Telangana Police Women Safety Wing has a Domestic Violence Module which “monitors cases, brings awareness and acts as a coordinator among different stakeholders”. It does not grant residence orders; the Magistrate does.

Appeal, change and breach

• Appeal: “There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later” (section 29).
• Breach of a protection order: “A breach of protection order, or of an interim protection order, by the respondent shall be an offence” punishable with imprisonment up to one year, or a fine up to Rs 20,000, or both (section 31(1)). It is cognizable and non-bailable (section 32(1)).
• Separate residence under Hindu law: a Hindu wife “shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance” on the grounds listed in section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, including desertion and cruelty. That right is against the husband.

Checklist

• Proof that you lived in the house: Aadhaar or other address records, bills, photographs, letters.
• Who owns the house, and in whose name it stands.
• A dated record of each incident, including being locked out or told to leave.
• Any police complaint or Women Safety Wing record.
• For in-laws: proof of ownership, your ages, and what maintenance or protection you seek.
• For the woman: any relief you have obtained in another court, which you must tell the Magistrate about (section 26(3)).
• Free legal services under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which section 5 requires you to be told about.

Related guides: domestic violence, dowry harassment and cruelty, maintenance, contested divorce and gift deeds.

For a discussion about the right to reside, a residence order or an eviction dispute with Musab Hashmi & Associates, call +91 89771 24916 or send an enquiry. Do not include identity numbers or copies of documents in the first message.

General legal information, not legal advice. Checked on 29 October 2026 against the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (National Commission for Women and Government of Puducherry copies) and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the Integrated Family Court, Hyderabad website and the Telangana Police Women Safety Wing website, and the Supreme Court judgments in S.R. Batra v Taruna Batra (15 December 2006), Hiral P. Harsora v Kusum Narottamdas Harsora (6 October 2016), Satish Chander Ahuja v Sneha Ahuja (15 October 2020), S. Vanitha v Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District (15 December 2020), Kamatchi v Lakshmi Narayanan (13 April 2022), Prabha Tyagi v Kamlesh Devi (12 May 2022), Samtola Devi v State of Uttar Pradesh (27 March 2025) and Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v Vidhi Rawal (19 May 2025).