SC: DV Act Bars Eviction of Women From Shared Household Even If Husband Absent

• The Supreme Court ruled that Section 19(1)(b) of the DV Act cannot be used to evict female relatives from a shared household.
• This prohibition applies even if the husband avoids domestic violence proceedings.
• Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi clarified that magistrates cannot order the removal of women under this section.
• The ruling stemmed from a case where a mother-in-law and sisters-in-law were evicted due to the husband's non-appearance.
• The court emphasized that the proviso to Section 19(1)(b) expressly bars orders against any person who is a woman.

The apex court emphasized that a husband's non-appearance in domestic violence proceedings cannot serve as a legitimate basis to remove his mother and sisters from the shared residence.

The Supreme Court of India recently clarified that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) does not permit the eviction of female relatives from a shared household, even if the husband involved in the domestic violence proceedings fails to appear. This significant ruling, delivered by Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi, underscores a critical limitation on the powers of magistrates under Section 19(1)(b) of the DV Act, specifically preventing orders for the removal of women from such premises.

The apex court emphasized that a husband's non-appearance in domestic violence proceedings cannot serve as a legitimate basis to remove his mother and sisters from the shared residence. This decision arose from a criminal appeal challenging an earlier order that had led to the ouster of a mother-in-law and sisters-in-law, highlighting the judiciary's stance on protecting women from eviction under the guise of domestic violence remedies.

Central to this judgment is Section 19(1)(b) of the DV Act, which grants magistrates the authority to issue protection orders. This specific provision empowers a magistrate to direct a respondent to vacate the shared household. However, a crucial proviso within this section explicitly states that no such order under clause (b) can be issued against an individual who is a woman.

This statutory safeguard is designed to prevent the displacement of women, even when they are respondents in domestic violence cases. The Supreme Court's interpretation reinforces that this protection extends to female relatives, such as a husband's mother and sisters, ensuring they are not subjected to eviction from a shared household, regardless of the husband's conduct or absence from legal proceedings.

The case originated from a petition filed by Yasmeen, wife of Sonu, under Section 12 of the DV Act. Yasmeen sought protection, monthly maintenance of Rs 25,000 for herself and her minor daughter, and an order to prevent the alienation of the shared household, among other reliefs. After the proceedings languished for over two and a half years, Yasmeen petitioned the Uttarakhand High Court for an expedited resolution.

The High Court became actively involved, admitting the application on June 19, 2025, and issuing notices. On July 29, 2025, noting Sonu's absence, the court permitted service through the consulate and electronic means, including WhatsApp and email, after allowing amendments to his address details. By July 2, 2026, the High Court observed that Sonu was deliberately avoiding the proceedings from Saudi Arabia. It then directed the counsel for Sonu's mother and sisters to secure instructions regarding his appearance date, warning of potential actions against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 if he failed to comply. Following an affidavit filed by Yasmeen on July 6, 2026, the competent court initiated non-bailable warrants and proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the concerned respondents. The High Court further ordered the attachment of the property where Sonu's mother and sisters resided, instructing the jurisdictional Station House Officer to submit a compliance report. This ultimately led to the police attaching and locking the residential property, resulting in the ouster of the appellants, namely Sonu's mother and sisters, from their home.

The Supreme Court's intervention came after the appellants, Sonu's mother and sisters, challenged their eviction. Despite arguments from the respondents' counsel that the appeal had become infructuous due to a subsequent High Court order on October 6, 2026, which merely directed the expedition of pending proceedings without addressing the impugned eviction, the Supreme Court rejected this contention. The Bench noted that the interim eviction order was still in effect, necessitating their review.

This judgment serves as a crucial precedent, clarifying the scope of protection orders under the DV Act. It ensures that the provision intended to protect victims of domestic violence is not misused to displace other female family members from their shared residence, even when a male respondent attempts to evade legal responsibility. The ruling reinforces the principle that the law's protective measures for women extend to all female occupants of a shared household, preventing their arbitrary removal.

Lawyers advising on domestic violence cases in India must note the Supreme Court's clarification that Section 19(1)(b) of the DV Act cannot be used to evict female relatives (mother, sisters) from a shared household, even if the husband avoids proceedings. This ruling limits the scope of protection orders and impacts litigation strategy for both applicants seeking remedies and respondents defending against eviction claims.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law