Can a woman’s right to live in her marital home really be subordinated to the comfort of her in-laws? Does her dignity come second to the “peace” of her husband’s family? These are the tough questions raised by the recent judgement from the Delhi High Court, which has ignited a fresh debate on women’s rights within the family. While framed as a balanced solution between conflicting family interests, the ruling ultimately reveals deep-rooted patriarchal assumptions embedded in both law and society—assumptions that leave women’s autonomy and dignity hanging by a thread.
At the heart of the judgement is Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), which grants women the right to live in a shared household, irrespective of ownership. This law, introduced to protect women from being rendered homeless during disputes or domestic violence, is meant to provide a fundamental layer of security and dignity. However, the Delhi High Court’s interpretation of this right as a “protective” entitlement, one that can be overridden by the rights of elderly in-laws, speaks volumes about the limitations of this protection. The woman’s right to residence, the Court ruled, is not a permanent entitlement but something that can be dismissed when it allegedly causes harm to her in-laws, even if they are the property owners.
On the surface, the decision seems to strive for fairness—balancing the needs of the woman with the needs of elderly family members. But from a feminist perspective, this ruling is problematic because it subordinates a woman’s fundamental rights to the comfort and well-being of male family members.
On the surface, the decision seems to strive for fairness—balancing the needs of the woman with the needs of elderly family members. But from a feminist perspective, this ruling is problematic because it subordinates a woman’s fundamental rights to the comfort and well-being of male family members. The case raises critical questions about the very nature of women’s rights within the family: How much autonomy does a woman really have in her marital home? What does the law say about her dignity when it’s placed in conflict with familial peace? And most importantly—why do women’s rights remain so dependent on the goodwill of others?
The woman’s question: what’s at stake for her?
One of the key principles in feminist legal theory is the “woman question”, which asks: How does the law impact women differently than it does men? In this case, the judgement fails to adequately answer this question. The Court’s framing of the woman’s right as “protective” is not only limiting—it’s dangerous. This right is framed as something temporary and subject to compromise, as long as it doesn’t disrupt the peace in the household. The Court’s focus is on the health of the elderly in-laws, who are suffering from the alleged strain of living with the daughter-in-law. But what about the woman’s health, dignity, and emotional well-being? What about her right to live free from constant negotiation about her right to residence?
The judgement reflects the deeply ingrained idea that a woman’s space within the family is negotiable, and her right to stay is conditional on her ability to fit within the family’s comfort zone. What’s at stake here is not just a roof over her head, but her sense of agency, security, and autonomy. The law should empower women to assert their space within the family, not turn their right to residence into a point of contention. Yet the Court’s ruling suggests that a woman’s right to stay in her own home is secondary to the wishes of her in-laws. This is not gender justice; it’s an endorsement of patriarchal family norms.
Economic dependency and the illusion of “alternative accommodation”
Beyond the legal question of whether women have a right to a home, there is a deeper, more urgent issue—economic dependency. The ruling assumes that by offering the woman an alternative place to live, funded by the in-laws, her needs are being met. But this completely misses the point. For many women, particularly in India, access to housing is tightly linked to economic independence. In a society where a woman’s financial autonomy is often controlled by her husband or in-laws, the idea of simply relocating her to an alternative accommodation does little to address the systemic inequality she faces.
If the alternative accommodation is provided at the in-laws’ expense, this only reinforces the dependence. The woman is moved from one form of control to another. The question—which the Court fails to ask—is: Does this decision provide true independence for the woman, or just an escape from one patriarchal system to another? The financial independence that comes with owning property, making independent housing choices, and controlling one’s income is the real solution, not temporary relocation. For many women, these rights remain out of reach, and the law, in this instance, merely papers over the deeper issues of economic and emotional dependence.
HC Judgement: the gendered logic of property and family
The underlying problem with the Court’s judgement is not just the legal question of residence but the broader gendered logic that governs family life and property ownership. The judgement places the interests of elderly parents-in-law above the needs of the woman, reinforcing an outdated, patriarchal idea that men—whether as husbands or in-laws—have the final say on family matters. It emphasises the sanctity of property ownership, but only in the hands of male family members. Women are still not seen as full stakeholders in family property.
In a modern, equitable society, a woman’s right to residence in her marital home should not depend on the approval of others. Her right should be as unambiguous and independent as that of any other family member.
In a modern, equitable society, a woman’s right to residence in her marital home should not depend on the approval of others. Her right should be as unambiguous and independent as that of any other family member. This case shows just how deeply entrenched the notion is that women’s rights to space, property, and autonomy in the family are always up for negotiation.
This is a direct reflection of a wider issue in Indian family law: women are still not considered equal partners in family property and decision-making. Instead, they are often positioned as guests, their residence in the family home contingent on the goodwill of the husband or in-laws. This legal logic doesn’t just undermine women’s autonomy—it also perpetuates a cycle of dependency and subjugation. Women should have the same rights to live in the family home as anyone else, not as an afterthought or as part of a deal with male relatives.
Empowering women to assert their rights
What this case highlights is the urgent need for reform in how women’s rights are framed within the family and in law. The judgement subtly reinforces the idea that women’s rights are less important than maintaining familial peace, a theme that runs through much of Indian family law. But the law should not force women to choose between their dignity and the peace of a patriarchal family structure.
True feminist reform would push for a system where women’s rights to residence, autonomy, and dignity are protected, not only in theory but in practice. A woman’s right to live in her marital home should not depend on maintaining peace with her in-laws. Her right to dignity, independence, and security should never be seen as secondary to the interests of male relatives. Instead, the law must recognise that economic empowerment, financial independence, and full legal ownership of property are the foundation of real gender justice.
The answer is clear: women’s rights to their homes should not be conditional or subject to negotiation. If we are serious about achieving gender equality, the law must reflect the principle that women’s rights are equal to those of their male counterparts in every sphere of family life, including property ownership and residence. Anything less is not just a setback—it’s a continuation of the patriarchal structures that have historically kept women in positions of subordination. It’s time for family law to catch up with the times and truly uphold women’s autonomy and dignity, without compromise.
About the author(s)
Anchal is a second year student at national Law school of India University, Bangalore.
