SRINAGAR: A Srinagar court has dismissed an appeal filed by a woman challenging an order directing her to vacate her shared household and asking her husband to provide alternative accommodation of a similar standard or pay monthly rent in lieu thereof, holding that the arrangement balanced her residential needs with the right of her aged in-laws to live peacefully in their own house.
The First Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, Anjum Ara, dismissed Muzamil Jan’s appeal against an order passed on January 22, 2026, by the Special Mobile Magistrate, Passenger Tax, Srinagar. The woman had sought restoration of an earlier interim order dated August 23, 2024, which had allowed her to reside in the shared household.
The appeal was filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Advocate Aquib Khan appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Badru Duja represented respondents Aijaz Ahmad Qari and Shameema, her father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively. The husband, Muzamil Qari, was respondent No. 1 and remained unrepresented in the appeal.
Property Dispute
Challenging the trial court’s order, the appellant argued that the disputed house had been treated as the self-acquired property of her in-laws without a full-fledged trial or sufficient evidence. She contended that her right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act could not be curtailed at the interim stage and that the court had given greater weight to the hardship faced by her aged in-laws than to her own need for shelter.
She also questioned the impleadment of her in-laws in the proceedings, arguing that the trial court had acted prematurely in allowing them to become parties to the case. The appellant maintained that she had been residing in the matrimonial home since her marriage and that directing her to move into rented accommodation would cause her serious hardship, particularly as she had no independent income.
The court recorded that she had sought a stay on the operation of the January 22 order insofar as it required her to vacate the shared household, along with restoration of the earlier interim arrangement.
Opposing the appeal, counsel for the parents argued that the domestic violence proceedings had been initiated to settle a property dispute and secure possession of a house belonging to his clients.
The respondents submitted that the mother-in-law had instituted separate proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against her son in 2023, following which an order dated December 14, 2023, restrained him from entering his parents’ dwelling house and from committing violence against them.
The court noted that the appellant had also earlier filed proceedings against her in-laws, but her application seeking a restraint order against her father-in-law was dismissed on August 2, 2024. No appeal had been preferred against that order, according to the record.
Subsequently, the appellant instituted proceedings against her husband, and an ex parte order dated August 13, 2024, granted her monthly maintenance of Rs 5,000 and residence in the shared household. The case was later transferred to the Special Mobile Magistrate, Passenger Tax, Srinagar, where her in-laws were impleaded and the order now under challenge was passed.
Advocate Badru Duja also submitted that the aged parents had been compelled to live in rented accommodation because of the conduct of their son and daughter-in-law. He relied on an order dated July 24, 2025, passed by the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, directing that the senior citizens be allowed access to their residential premises with police assistance.
The respondents’ counsel cited the judgments in Arti Sharma and Another v. Ganga Saran, Fareed Hussain and Another v. Union Territory of J&K and Others, Manjoo Arora v. Neelam Arora and Adil and Others v. State and Another in support of his submissions.
Earlier Litigation
Examining the case history, the court noted that the mother-in-law had obtained an order restraining her son from entering the parents’ dwelling house in December 2023. It also took note of the dismissal of the appellant’s earlier application against her in-laws and the subsequent proceedings initiated by the aged parents before the Maintenance Tribunal.
The tribunal’s July 24, 2025, order had directed the authorities to ensure that the senior citizens could enter their residential premises “without disturbance or threat to their life and peace” and had asked the Station House Officer of Police Station Saddar to provide all possible assistance.
The Sessions Court described this as an “important and relevant circumstance” in deciding the appeal, observing that it reflected the aged parents’ claim to access and peacefully enjoy their residential premises.
The court also noted that the trial court had not left the appellant without a remedy. Instead, it had directed her husband to provide suitable alternative accommodation of a similar standard or pay rent in lieu thereof within 30 days of the January 22 order.
Residence Rights
Addressing the appellant’s principal argument under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, the court acknowledged that an aggrieved woman is entitled to claim residence in a shared household even if she has no ownership, tenancy or beneficial interest in it.
“There is no dispute that a legally wedded wife/aggrieved person is entitled to claim maintenance and residential relief in accordance with law,” the court observed.
However, it held that the trial court had provided an alternative residential remedy by placing the obligation on the husband rather than his parents.
“The direction is rightly passed because the obligation to provide such accommodation has been placed upon the husband and not upon respondents No. 2 and 3,” the order stated.
The court said the arrangement took into account both the appellant’s claim for residential accommodation and the aged parents’ right to live peacefully in their own house. It concluded that the trial court had passed a balanced order by providing alternative accommodation while considering the welfare of the senior citizens.
Distinguishing residence rights from ownership claims, the court further observed that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act could not replace appropriate civil proceedings where title or other proprietary rights required adjudication.
“The proceedings under the D.V. Act cannot be treated as a substitute for appropriate civil proceedings where adjudication of title or other proprietary rights is required,” the order stated.
Appeal Dismissed
Finding no legal infirmity in the trial court’s order, the Sessions Court held that the appellant had failed to establish grounds for restoring the earlier interim arrangement.
“This Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 22.01.2026,” the judge observed, adding that the appeal was “devoid of merit” and dismissing it accordingly.
The court, however, clarified that its observations were confined to the appeal and would not prejudice the merits of the main complaint, which must be decided by the trial court independently on the basis of the evidence and material brought on record during the trial.
