New Delhi [India], July 23 : Delhi's Karkardooma court has recently, in a Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act case, granted liberty to a widow to reside in the matrimonial home along with her minor child. This house was shared by the in-laws and the woman along with her husband when he was alive.
She was allegedly thrown out of the matrimonial house in 2018. Her husband expired in November 2015. She alleged physical assault and demand for dowry by the in-laws.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JMFC-Mahila Court) Sonika on July 19, 2025, granted liberty to the complainant woman to reside in the matrimonial shared household along with her minor child.
The court ordered, "Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to reside alongwith her minor child in the aforesaid shared household and the respondents are hereby restrained from dispossessing the petitioner without due process of law."
However, the court has declined to grant maintenance from her in-laws in the absence of any property or business jointly owned by her husband and other in-laws.
While dealing with the issue of maintenance, the court observed that the petitioner had not placed any document to show that any of the respondents had any joint property/business with the deceased husband of the complainant.
"In the absence of any joint/coparcenary property, the respondents cannot be burdened with the liability to maintain the petitioner," JMFC said in the order passed on July 19.
The court also noted that the prayer of maintenance was not preferred in the application for residence.
Advocate Manish Bhadauria, counsel for the complainant, submitted that in August 2018, the respondents threw the petitioner out of the shared household in wearing clothes.
"Thus, it is prayed that the present application be allowed and the petitioner be granted the relief of maintenance and residence," counsel prayed.
On the other hand, advocate Praveen Goswami, counsel for respondents, submitted that no cruelty was ever committed by respondents.
It was further submitted that the petitioner had not specified any date or time when she was harassed by any of the respondents, and the allegations levelled in the petition as well as the present application are omnibus and general in nature.