Right To Residence In Shared Household Under DV Act Is Not Dependent On Status Of Ownership: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the protective nature of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), ruling that a wife's right to reside in a "shared household" remains intact regardless of the property's title. In a judgment delivered by Justice Sanjeev Narula, the court settled a protracted legal battle between a daughter-in-law and her parents-in-law, clarifying that for the purposes of the DV Act, the "niceties of title" do not supersede the statutory right of residence.

A Decade of Discord

The legal struggle originated from the breakdown of the marriage between Gagandeep Sidhu and Saravjeet Singh, finalized in 2010. Following frequent marital disputes and an eventual attempt by the parents-in-law, Khushwant Kaur and her late husband Daljit Singh, to evict the daughter-in-law from the premises, the matter became the subject of multiple civil and criminal proceedings.

The petitioners contended that the property in Old Gobindpura Extension was the self-acquired asset of the late father-in-law and that they had legally "disowned" their son in 2011. They argued that because their son and the respondent lived apart for years, the property could not be classified as a "shared household." Conversely, the respondent asserted her statutory right to continue living in the matrimonial home, maintaining that she had been unjustly targeted for dispossession.

Arguments in the Balance

The petitioners challenged the orders of the lower courts, citing that as the lawful owners of what was categorized as self-acquired property, their right to exclusive enjoyment of the asset was being violated. They argued that the respondent’s physical absence and the purported lack of a domestic relationship rendered her claim under Section 17 of the DV Act invalid.

The respondent maintained that the "shared household" definition under the DV Act rests on whether the couple lived there at any point in time during the domestic relationship. She argued that the protection order was not a declaration of ownership, but a vital shield against unlawful eviction without due process.

Legal Analysis: The Primacy of Protection

The High Court’s reasoning was anchored in the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in * Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja *. Justice Narula observed that the DV Act is specifically designed to prevent the victimization of women through domestic abuse, which often includes the threat of homelessness.

The court emphasized that the interpretation sought by the petitioners—that ownership title negates residence rights—would frustrate the legislature's intent. "The DV Act is protective in character; residence orders do not adjudicate title and do not confer proprietary rights, but they do shield the aggrieved woman from dispossession, save in accordance with law," the judgment noted.

Key Observations

The High Court’s ruling included several stern points regarding the nature of the Act: * "A property exclusively owned by in-laws may constitute a shared household if the aggrieved woman lived there with her husband in a domestic relationship." * "Ownership is immaterial for Section 17 so long as the Section 2 (s) test is satisfied." * "To suggest that the right of residence ceases the moment cohabitation ceases would render Sections 2 (s) and 17 otiose and defeat the purpose of the Statute." * "The residence order, limited to preventing dispossession without due process, operates as a safeguard rather than a sanction."

The Final Verdict

Finding no perversity or illegality in the lower courts' concurrent findings, the High Court dismissed the revision petitions. The court struck a balance by noting that the current arrangement—where the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law reside in different portions of the property—sufficiently protects the senior citizen while recognizing the respondent’s statutory right.

The court clarified that this judgment does not settle the ongoing title or ownership disputes, which remain under the purview of civil courts and the Supreme Court. However, it ensures that until a legal eviction process is completed, the "protective umbrella" of the DV Act prevents the arbitrary displacement of the daughter-in-law.