Residence orders
Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 deals with residence orders. While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order-- (a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person fro The Act came into force on 26 Oct 2006.
(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order--
(a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in 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 off 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; or
(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, if the circumstances so require:
Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman.
(2) The Magistrate may impose any additional conditions or pass any other direction which he may deem reasonably necessary to protect or to provide for the safety of the aggrieved person or any child of such aggrieved person.
(3) The Magistrate may require from the respondent to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for preventing the commission of domestic violence.
(4) An order under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be an order under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and shall be dealt with accordingly.
(5) While passing an order under sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the court may also pass an order directing the officer in charge of the nearest police station to give protection to the aggrieved person or to assist her or the person making an application on her behalf in the implementation of the order.
(6) While making an order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may impose on the respondent obligations relating to the discharge of rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties.
(7) The Magistrate may direct the officer in-charge of the police station in whose jurisdiction the Magistrate has been approached to assist in the implementation of the protection order.
(8) The Magistrate may direct the respondent to return to the possession of the aggrieved person her stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which she is entitled to.
Section 19, The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act 43 of 2005).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
DV Act s.2(s) 'shared household' is not limited to a household the woman jointly owns or that belongs to the husband. A residence where she has lived in a domestic relationship — including the matrimonial home owned by the father-in-law — can be a shared household. s.17 right to reside and s.19 residence orders apply; S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra was wrongly decided on this point.
On this section: Residence orders can protect occupation of that shared household even against the in-laws' title.
-
Vaishali Abhimanyu Joshi vs Nansaheb Gopal Joshi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a suit between licensor and licensee for recovery of possession of immovable property is cognizable by a Small Causes Court under Section 26(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (as amended by Maharashtra Act 24 of 1984), the counter-claim filed by the defendant seeking residence rights under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is fully entertainable by the Small Causes Court, as the 'non obstante' clause in Section 26(1) overrides the jurisdictional limitations in Schedule II (Item 11), and Section 26 of the DV Act 2005 explicitly permits reliefs under Sections 18-22 to be sought in any legal proceeding before a civil court, including Small Causes Courts.
On this section: Core provision relied upon by appellant for claiming right to reside in the suit flat; permits residence orders in favor of aggrieved persons subjected to domestic violence
-
Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Courts dealing with petitions/complaints filed under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have the inherent power to allow amendments to such petitions/complaints even though no specific amendment provision exists in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Such amendments can be allowed in appropriate cases where: (1) the amendment relates to curable infirmities or subsequent events creating new causes of action; (2) allowing the amendment serves to avoid multiplicity of litigation; (3) no cognizance has been taken or summons issued; (4) the amendment does not fundamentally change the nature of the complaint; and (5) no prejudice is caused to the respondent. The civil nature of reliefs available under the Domestic Violence Act and the Legislature's intent as reflected in Section 28(2) support the exercise of this power.
On this section: Authorizes Magistrate to pass residence orders. Court noted this as one of the civil reliefs available.
-
Saraswathy vs Babu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The conduct of the respondent-husband in preventing the appellant-wife from residing in the shared household, even after court orders granting her restitution of conjugal rights, constitutes continuance of domestic violence including economic abuse. Conduct of parties prior to the enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be taken into consideration while passing orders under Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the PWD Act, 2005. In cases of continued domestic violence following court orders, courts are competent to grant protection orders, residence orders, maintenance, and compensation for mental torture and emotional distress under the PWD Act, 2005.
On this section: Residence orders restraining respondent from dispossessing aggrieved person from shared household; Court upheld and directed compliance with residence order allowing appellant to reside in marital home
-
Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar vs Mah. Housing & Area Devt. Auhority
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A married woman has a recognized right to reside in her matrimonial home embedded in her status as wife under family law principles, but this right cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction when the dispute involves private family property. The right to reside in matrimonial home flows from independent legal principles of family law and is distinct from and not derivable from statutory rehabilitation schemes under housing redevelopment acts. A wife's claim to reside in family property allocated to husband after redevelopment must be adjudicated in civil or family court with appropriate fact-finding jurisdiction, not through writ petition under Article 226. The statutory obligation of housing authorities and builders to rehabilitate dishoused occupiers is limited to those with direct title or independent occupancy rights under the statute, and does not extend to family members claiming collaterally through the primary beneficiary.
On this section: Court noted that magistrate under this section has power to pass residence order protecting victim of domestic violence from removal from shared household
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Moreover if any part of the service apartment or the latch lock is broken, then petitioner can at any time call the caretaker to and get it repaired. At this stage, the court is only required to see prima facie case and is not required to go into the merits of the case.‖ 7. As per Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the respondent has already provided the service apartment to the petitioner, as commensurate to his status and she is living in the same with the child. So far as monetary reliefs are concerned, the reliefs which have been claimed by the petitioner in her …
Made under this section, and citing it
1 instrument names this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 19
What have the courts held on Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act?
Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (15 Oct 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Residence orders can protect occupation of that shared household even against the in-laws' title. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: DV Act 19, section 19 DV Act, section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. People searching for it also type dv act 19 8. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (15 Oct 2020).
What should I read with Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. One instrument names it without being made under it, most recently The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 (2006).
When did Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act come into force?
Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, cited as DV Act 19, came into force on 26 Oct 2006, having been enacted on 13 Sep 2005. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions623 words
- 3. Definition of domestic violence482 words
- 37. Power of Central Government to make rules443 words
- 9. Duties and functions of Protection Officers360 words
- 20. Monetary reliefs336 words
- 10. Service providers293 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.