Residence order under the Domestic Violence Act is a court order that protects the aggrieved woman's right to reside in the shared household and may restrain the respondent from dispossessing her or disturbing her possession. Under Indian law, residence orders are governed by Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Legal definition
Section 19(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides that while disposing of an application under Section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order which may include:
(a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from 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 or disposing of the shared household or encumbering the same; (e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; (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.
Section 17 of the Act provides the substantive right: 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.
How courts have interpreted this term
Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi [(2022) SCC Online SC 536]
The Supreme Court delivered the most expansive interpretation of the right to residence under the DV Act, holding that a woman can enforce her right to reside in a shared household even if she has never actually lived there. The Court introduced the concept of "constructive residence," holding that the right to reside includes both actual and constructive residence, and that a subsisting domestic relationship is not required at the time of filing the application. Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna observed that the expression "right to reside" needed an expansive interpretation in the Indian context.
Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja [(2021) 1 SCC 414]
The Supreme Court overruled the restrictive interpretation of "shared household" adopted in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007). The Court held that a residence order can be passed in respect of any shared household in which the aggrieved person has lived, including a property owned exclusively by the mother-in-law or father-in-law. This decision significantly expanded the scope of residence orders by broadening the definition of shared household.
S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra [(2007) 3 SCC 169]
The Supreme Court initially adopted a restrictive interpretation, holding that a shared household means only a house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or a house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. A property exclusively owned by the mother-in-law could not be treated as a shared household. This decision was effectively overruled by Satish Chander Ahuja (2021).
Why this matters
The right to residence is one of the most practically significant protections available to women under the DV Act. In India, where women frequently move to the matrimonial home upon marriage and may have no independent accommodation, the threat of dispossession from the shared household is a potent instrument of domestic abuse. Residence orders prevent such dispossession and ensure that the woman has a roof over her head during and after matrimonial proceedings.
The progressive expansion of residence order jurisprudence — from S.R. Batra's restrictive approach to the expansive interpretations in Satish Chander Ahuja and Prabha Tyagi — reflects the courts' recognition that effective protection against domestic violence requires a broad understanding of what constitutes the woman's home and her right to occupy it.
For practitioners, residence orders are often combined with protection orders under Section 18 and monetary relief under Section 20 to create a comprehensive protective framework. The Magistrate can also direct the respondent to secure alternative accommodation of the same standard for the aggrieved woman or to pay rent for the same, providing flexibility when continued cohabitation is not feasible.
Related terms
Broader concepts:
Related DV Act concepts:
Related:
Frequently asked questions
Can a residence order be passed against the mother-in-law's property?
Yes. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021), which overruled S.R. Batra (2007), a residence order can be passed in respect of any shared household, including a property owned by the in-laws, provided the woman has lived there in a domestic relationship.
Does the woman need to have actually lived in the house to get a residence order?
Not necessarily. The Supreme Court in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (2022) held that the right to reside includes "constructive residence" — a woman can enforce her right even if she has not actually lived in the shared household, provided she had the right to do so.
Can the respondent be directed to leave the shared household?
Yes. Section 19(1)(b) expressly empowers the Magistrate to direct the respondent to remove himself from the shared household. This order can be passed even if the respondent owns the property, as the woman's right to reside under Section 17 is not dependent on her having any ownership interest.
Can a residence order be obtained after divorce?
The DV Act protects women who are or have been in a domestic relationship. A woman who has been divorced may still seek a residence order if she was subjected to domestic violence during the marriage and has not secured alternative accommodation.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.