A woman’s right to reside in a shared household ceases upon divorce, and she cannot assert ownership rights without substantiated evidence of financial contribution.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present Appeal under Section 19 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984 assails the correctness of Order dated 22.03.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned Family Court [hereinafter referred to as the “Family Court”], whereby the suit for possession, damages/ use and occupation charges, permanent as well as mandatory injunction filed by the Respondent, was decreed in her favour.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The brief facts leading to the present Appeal, as pleaded, are that the Appellant and the Respondent share a matrimonial and familial relationship. The Appellant is the daughter-in-law of the Respondent (Plaintiff before Family Court). The Respondent’s son, Mr. Nanak Mehta, married the Appellant on 13.04.1999 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, a male child was born on 07.02.2000. The Respondent passed away on 14.05.2016, leaving behind two legal heirs, i.e., one daughter, Ms. Pratibha Chadda and one son, Mr. Nanak Mehta, both of whom were brought on record as her legal representatives. It is relevant to note that the Respondent had executed a Will in favour of her daughter, Ms. Pratibha Chadda, who now represents her estate in the present proceedings.

3. The case of the Appellant, before the Family Court, was that she had been residing at property bearing No. D-2/217, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”], since her marriage in 1999 and continued to reside there as it constituted her matrimonial home. She claimed that the suit property was initially purchased in the name of her husband, Mr. Nanak Mehta, and was subsequently transferred to his mother, the Respondent, not voluntarily, but under duress, given the strained relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent. The Appellant alleged that since the inception of her marriage, she had been subjected to acts of cruelty, both mental and physical at the hands of her husband, Mr. Nanak Mehta, as well as by her in-laws.

4. The Appellant further claimed that she had made financial contributions, either personally or through her family, towards the purchase and construction of the suit property. In support, she relied upon the testimony of her brother, Mr. Maninder Singh, who claimed to have contributed Rs. 60,000/- in 1998 for the said purchase, at the behest of Mr. Nanak Mehta in contemplation of marriage. It was also alleged that the suit property was ancestral in nature, and that her forefathers had contributed financially to its construction. It was contended that following matrimonial discord, the Respondent, in collusion with her son, sought to evict the Appellant from the suit property. Despite her objections, and in the absence of any suitable alternative accommodation, she was allegedly dispossessed from the suit property by force. The suit for possession and injunction was, therefore, filed by the Respondent to regularise and validate the Appellant’s unlawful eviction from her matrimonial home.

5. The Appellant further contended that on 19.05.2009, false allegations were levelled against her to the effect that an unidentified person had been residing with her, which led her husband to institute divorce proceedings; in response, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as "PWDV Act”], which, however, came to be dismissed at the threshold on the ground of maintainability, without examination of the merits