The statutory protection of residence for women under the Domestic Violence Act does not hinge on ownership but on established domestic relationships.

1. Both these revision petitions arise out of disputes concerning the same property and rest on common factual foundations. As the grounds urged and the submissions addressed on either side are identical in substance, they are being decided together by this judgment.

Factual Background

2. The Respondent in both petitions, Gagandeep Sidhu, got married to Saravjeet Singh, the son of the Petitioners, namely Khushwant Kaur (mother-in-law) and late Daljit Singh (father-in-law), on 14th November, 2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, Gagandeep Sidhu moved into her matrimonial home at House No. 11/8, Gali No. 1 & 2, Old Gobindpura Extension, Delhi-1100511. However, the matrimonial relationship soon deteriorated, giving rise to disputes between her and the Petitioners.

2.1. The Petitioners contend that owing to marital discord and differences, the Respondent along with her husband, Saravjeet Singh, initially began living at the ground floor of the matrimonial home. However, the continued strain in their relationship led the couple to move out of the matrimonial home and shift to a rented accommodation on 1st November, 2011. The Petitioners further assert that, prior to this, they had disowned and disentitled their son, Saravjeet Singh, from all movable and immovable properties through a public notice published in the Rashtriya Sahara on 29th October, 2011 and by an itla peshbandi lodged with P.S. Jagat Puri.

2.2. The Respondent disputes this version and asserts that on 2nd November, 2011, upon returning home, she found her husband and the Petitioners removing her belongings to a rented room, allegedly to dispossess her from the matrimonial home against her wishes.

2.3. The Petitioners asserts that on the night of 2nd November, 2011, the Respondent, accompanied by her family members, forcibly entered the property, broke open the locks of the ground floor, and occupied the premises. They state that this prompted them to issue a legal notice dated 11th November, 2011, calling upon the Respondent to vacate the property, and subsequently to institute Civil Suit No. 248/2011 seeking a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction along with mesne profits.

2.4. In the above backdrop, the Respondent initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 2 and filed a complaint under Section 12 of DV Act being V-08/2012, against Saravjeet Singh (husband), late Daljit Singh (father-in-law) and Khushwant Kaur (mother-in-law), inter-alia claiming a right of residence in the shared household – i.e., the ground floor of the subject property.

2.5. Conversely, Khushwant Kaur (mother-in-law) also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, which was registered as V-27/2012, seeking inter-alia protection against the Respondent and her family members, from alienating or otherwise disposing off part of the subject property. Further, compensation of INR 10,000/- per month was sought from the Respondent for the illegal use and occupation of the subject property.

2.6. On 14th September, 2018, Civil Suit No. 248/2011 filed by late Daljit Singh was partly decreed and partly dismissed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Guardian Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The Court declined to grant mandatory injunction against the Respondent, holding that such a relief was not maintainable in the absence of a finding of licence agreement and that the appropriate remedy was to seek the relief of possession and mesne profits. However, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was granted rest