DV Act Jurisprudence: Husband’s Non-Appearance Cannot Lead to Eviction of Female Relatives from Shared Household

The Supreme Court of India has held that a husband’s non-appearance or avoidance of court proceedings cannot be used as a ground to evict his mother and sisters from a shared household. The Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi clarified that the proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) explicitly bars a Magistrate from ordering the removal of any female relative from a shared residential property.

Case Overview

• Case Title: Shahjahan & Ors. v. Yasmeen & Ors.

• Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar & Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

• Date of Judgment: October 16, 2026

• Key Legislation: Section 19(1)(b), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

• High Court Concerned: High Court of Uttarakhand

Factual Background & Procedural History

1. Filing of Petition: The respondent, Yasmeen (wife), instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act before the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking protection orders, monetary maintenance of ₹25,000 per month for herself and her minor daughter, and an order restraining the alienation of the shared household.

2. Absence of Husband: The proceedings remained pending for over two and a half years as the husband, Sonu, residing in Saudi Arabia, continuously avoided court appearances.

3. High Court Directives: Seeking expedited disposal, Yasmeen filed a criminal miscellaneous application before the Uttarakhand High Court. The High Court directed service of notice upon the husband through consular and electronic channels (including email and WhatsApp). Observing that the husband was evading appearance, the High Court directed counsel for his mother and sisters to state when he would appear, failing which coercive measures were warned.

4. Coercive Orders & Dispossession: Subsequently, non-bailable warrants and attachment proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 were ordered. The High Court directed the attachment of the residential premises occupied by Sonu’s mother and sisters. Pursuant to these orders, local police locked the house, thereby dispossessing and ousting the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law from their home.

5. Appeal to Supreme Court: Shahjahan (mother-in-law) along with her daughters approached the Apex Court challenging the interim attachment and physical eviction.

Key Legal Issues Raised

• Interpretation of Section 19(1)(b): Can an order directing the removal of occupants from a shared household be executed against female respondents under the DV Act?

• Effect of Property Attachment: Does an order of property attachment empower authorities to lock a residential house and physically oust its occupants?

• Vicarious Liability for Non-Appearance: Can female family members be subjected to eviction due to the husband’s evasion of court process?

Supreme Court Analysis & Ruling

1. Mandatory Bar under Section 19(1)(b) Proviso

Section 19(1)(b) of the DV Act empowers a Magistrate to direct a respondent to remove himself from the shared household. However, the proviso to clause (b) lays down an express statutory bar:

“Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman.”

The Bench noted that the Magistrate and High Court erred in directing actions that resulted in the removal of female relatives, which directly runs counter to the statutory protection guaranteed by the proviso.

2. Legal Meaning of Attachment (Custodia Legis vs. Dispossession)

The Supreme Court addressed the misuse of property attachment orders, observing that locking premises and physically turning out residents is impermissible under law. The Court emphasized:

• An attachment order is designed to keep property in custodia legis (in the custody of the court) to prevent the creation of third-party rights or encumbrances.

• Attachment does not grant authorization to police or local authorities to lock a residential dwelling and throw out female family members living there.

3. Separation of Husband’s Evasion from Relatives’ Rights

The Bench rejected the respondent’s argument that the appeal had become infructuous following the final disposal of the High Court proceedings. The Apex Court held that since the interim eviction order had caused actual dispossession, it required immediate judicial correction.

The Court observed:

• Immediate Relief: The attachment and locking of the premises were set aside forthwith, allowing the appellants to re-occupy their residence.

• Remedies Against Husband: The complainant wife remains fully entitled to pursue lawful remedies against the husband to secure his presence—such as issuing lookout notices or other process under law—without penalizing his female family members.

• Expeditious Trial: The jurisdictional Magistrate was directed to make all efforts to expedite trial court proceedings.

Key Takeaways for Legal Practitioners

• Absolute Protection for Women Respondents under Section 19(1)(b): Courts cannot order the physical removal of women respondents from a shared household under Section 19(1)(b), regardless of the circumstances of the case.

• Attachment Does Not Equal Dispossession: Property attachment orders serve as a restraint on encumbrance, not an authorization for physical eviction or sealing of residential homes occupied by female relatives.

• No Coercive Eviction for Third-Party Non-Appearance: A husband’s evasion of judicial process cannot be translated into punitive dispossession of his mother or sisters.