Strengthen patriarchy or promote gender equality? Delhi HC judgment on women’s right to share a household
Can a woman’s right to live in her matrimonial home really be subordinated to the comfort of her in-laws? Is her dignity behind the “peace” of her husband’s family? These are the difficult questions raised by the Court’s recent ruling Delhi High Courtwhich has sparked a new debate about women’s rights within the family. Although the ruling is framed as a balanced solution to conflicting family interests, it ultimately reveals deeply rooted patriarchal assumptions embedded in both legislation and society – assumptions that leave women’s autonomy and dignity hanging by a thread.
The verdict centers on Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), which gives women the right to live in a shared household regardless of ownership. This law was introduced to protect women from becoming homeless in the event of disputes or domestic violence and is intended to provide a basic layer of security Would. However, the Delhi High Court’s interpretation of this right as a “right to protection” which can be overridden by the rights of elderly in-laws speaks volumes about the limits of this protection. The court ruled that the woman’s right of residence was not a permanent right, but something that could be revoked if it allegedly caused harm to her in-laws, even if they were the property owners.
On the surface, the decision appears to be about justice, that is, balancing the needs of the woman with the needs of older family members. However, from a feminist perspective, this ruling is problematic because it subordinates a woman’s basic rights to the comfort and well-being of male family members.
On the surface, the decision appears to be about justice, that is, balancing the needs of the woman with the needs of older family members. However, from a feminist perspective, this ruling is problematic because it subordinates a woman’s basic rights to the comfort and well-being of male family members. The case raises critical questions about the 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 their dignity when it conflicts with family peace? And above all: Why do women’s rights continue to depend so heavily on the goodwill of others?
The woman’s question: What is at stake for her?
One of the key principles of feminist legal theory is the “woman question,” which asks: How does the law affect women differently than it does men? In the present case, the judgment does not adequately answer this question. The court’s framing of women’s rights as “protective” is not only restrictive but dangerous. This right is intended as something temporary and open to compromise as long as it does not disturb the peace in the household. The court’s focus is on the health of the elderly parents-in-law, who are suffering from the alleged strain of living with their daughter-in-law. But what about women’s health, dignity and emotional well-being? What about their right to live free from constant negotiations about their right of residence?
Canva
The ruling reflects the deeply rooted idea that a woman’s space within the family is negotiable and her right to stay depends on her ability to fit into the family’s comfort zone. This is not just about a roof over their heads, but also about their sense of choice, security and autonomy. The law should give women the opportunity to assert their place within the family and not make their right of residence a point of contention. However, the court’s ruling suggests that a woman’s right to remain in her own home is secondary to the wishes of her in-laws. This is not gender equality; It is a confirmation 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 and more pressing issue: economic dependency. The judgment assumes that her needs will be met by offering the woman an alternative place of residence, financed by the in-laws. But that completely misses the point. For many women, particularly in India, access to housing is closely 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 moving her to other housing does little to address the systemic inequality she faces.
If the alternative accommodation is at the expense of the in-laws, this only increases the dependency. The woman is moved from one form of control to another. The question – which the court does not ask – is: Does this decision offer women true independence or just an escape from one patriarchal system to another? The financial independence that comes with owning real estate, choosing independent living arrangements, and controlling your own income is the real solution, not a temporary move. For many women, these rights remain unattainable and the law in this case only addresses the deeper issues of economic and emotional dependency.
HC ruling: the gendered logic of property and family
The issue underlying the Court’s ruling is not only the legal question of residence, but also the broader gendered logic that governs family life and property ownership. The ruling puts the interests of older in-laws above the needs of women, reinforcing the outdated, patriarchal idea that men – whether as husbands or as in-laws – have the final say in family matters. It emphasizes the sanctity of property, but only in the hands of male family members. Women are still not seen as full shareholders of family property.
In a modern, just society, a woman’s right to remain in her marital home should not depend on the consent of others. Your right should be as clear and independent as that of any other family member.
In a modern, just society, a woman’s right to remain in her marital home should not depend on the consent of others. Your right should be as clear and independent as that of any other family member. This case shows how deeply rooted the idea is that women’s rights to space, property and autonomy in the family are always up for negotiation.
This directly reflects a broader problem in Indian family law: women are still not seen as equal partners in family ownership and decision-making. Instead, they are often positioned as guests, with their stay in the family home dependent on the goodwill of their husband or in-laws. This legal logic not only undermines women’s autonomy, but also perpetuates a vicious cycle of dependence and subjugation. Women should have the same right to live in the family home as everyone else, and not as an afterthought or as part of an agreement with male relatives.
Empowering women to exercise their rights
What this case illustrates is the urgent need for reform in the design of women’s rights in the family and in the law. The ruling subtly reinforces the idea that women’s rights are less important than maintaining family peace, a theme that runs through much of India’s family law. But the law should not force women to choose between their dignity and the peace of a patriarchal family structure.
A true feminist reform would push for a system in which women’s rights to residency, autonomy and dignity are protected, not only in theory but also in practice. A woman’s right to live in her matrimonial home should not depend on maintaining peace with her in-laws. Their right to dignity, independence and security should never be considered secondary to the interests of male relatives. Instead, the law must recognize that economic empowerment, financial independence and full ownership of property are the basis for true gender equality.
The answer is clear: women’s right to their home should not be conditional or subject to negotiation. If we are serious about gender equality, the law must reflect the principle that women have the same rights as their male counterparts in all areas of family life, including property and residence. Anything less is not just a setback – it is a continuation of the patriarchal structures that have historically kept women in subordinate positions. It is time for family law to move with the times and truly and without compromise protect the autonomy and dignity of women.
Anchal is a second-year student at the National Law School, India University, Bangalore.
