Property Upon Attachment Becomes Custodia Legis: Apex Court Sets Aside Order Outsting Mother-In-Law & Sisters-In-Law From Shared Household Under DV Act

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 30 October 2026

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

The Supreme Court held that under the proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the Domestic Violence Act, no order removing a woman from the shared household can be passed. The Court directed the raising of the attachment on the property, affirming that attached property becomes custodia legis.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

Under the proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, no order can be passed that removes a woman from a shared household. Property under attachment becomes custodia legis, meaning it is in the custody of the law.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates should argue against any order seeking to remove a woman from a shared household, citing the proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the DV Act. Litigants should be aware that attached property is under legal custody and its disposition is subject to court orders.

Key Legal Takeaways

1No woman can be removed from a shared household under Section 19(1)(b) of the DV Act.
2Attached property is considered custodia legis.
3Orders for attachment of property must respect the rights of women to reside in a shared household.

The Legal Issue The Supreme Court addressed the legality of an order that sought to remove a mother-in-law and sisters-in-law from a shared household, particularly when the property was under attachment. The core issue revolved around the interpretation and application of the proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), which restricts orders removing women from shared households, and the legal status of attached property.

Court's Reasoning The Apex Court held that property, once attached, becomes custodia legis, meaning it is in the custody of the law. This status implies that the property is subject to the court's control and orders. Crucially, the Court emphasized the proviso to Section 19(1)(b) of the DV Act, which explicitly states that no order can be passed that removes a woman from a shared household. By applying this proviso, the Court found the order outsting the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law from the shared household to be legally unsustainable.

What Follows The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order that directed the removal of the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law from the shared household. Furthermore, the Court directed that the attachment on the property be raised. This decision ensures that women's rights to reside in a shared household, as protected by the DV Act, are upheld even when property is under attachment.