Mother-in-law can't be evicted over husband's absence in DV case: SC

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a mother-in-law and sisters-in-law cannot be thrown out of the family home simply because the husband failed to appear in a domestic violence case filed by his wife. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi set aside an order of the Uttarakhand High Court that had led to the house being attached, locked by police and the women removed from it, and directed that the attachment be lifted at once. The order, dated October 16, 2026, was reported at the end of October. The court held that attaching a property in such a case can at most make it "custodia legis", meaning it is held under the court's protection so that it cannot be sold or mortgaged, and does not allow the people living there to be locked out.

The Domestic Violence Act was written to protect women from abuse at home, including the right to stay in the "shared household" and not be thrown out. Courts can pass residence orders, for example directing a husband to leave or stop interfering with a wife's stay. But the law also says that no such removal order can be passed against a woman. This ruling applies that protection evenly: the same law that protects a wife from being made homeless also protects other women in the family, such as a mother-in-law or a sister-in-law, from being evicted as a penalty for something they did not do.

The case also clarifies what "attachment" of property means. Courts sometimes attach a property to make sure a person who is avoiding the case cannot sell it or borrow against it. According to the reports, the Supreme Court said this only puts the property under the court's protection. It does not give the police the power to lock up the house and push out the people living there. The court called the police action in this case erroneous and impermissible.

For families going through a marriage dispute, the ruling separates two things that often get mixed up: the case against the husband, and the rights of other relatives who live in the same home. A wife's claims for protection and maintenance still go ahead. Pressure on a husband who is not cooperating has to come through lawful steps against him, not by making his mother and sisters homeless.

Short-term: The women in this case can return to the house, and the magistrate is expected to take up the wife's pending claims quickly. Lawyers in other domestic violence cases can cite the order where relatives face eviction because of a husband's absence.

Long-term: The ruling adds to a line of Supreme Court decisions that read the "shared household" protection broadly. It may make trial courts and police more careful about how they carry out attachment orders in family disputes.

Who is affected: Women living in joint families, including mothers-in-law and sisters-in-law; wives seeking protection and maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act; magistrates and police who enforce such orders; and lawyers handling matrimonial cases.

Questions and Answers