Daughter-in-law's residence protection in her matrimonial home was challenged by in-laws claiming exclusive ownership and non-occupation. The Court held the premises a shared household; title was irrelevant to residence rights, and low electricity consumption could not displace concurrent factual findings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 28th August, 2025 Pronounced on: 16th October, 2025
Through: Mrs. Kajal Chandra, Ms. Hatneimawi, Advocates.
versus
SMT GAGANDEEP SIDHU .....Respondent Through: Ms. Samvedna Verma, Advocate.
DALJIT SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Kajal Chandra, Ms. Hatneimawi, Advocates.
versus
SMT GAGANDEEP SIDHU .....Respondent Through: Ms. Samvedna Verma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 1 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
Factual Background
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
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 2 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
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, 20052 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
1 “subject property”
2 “DV Act”
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 3 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
injunction was granted restraining the Respondent from obstructing the ingress and egress of the Petitioners through the main gate of the subject property. Pursuant thereto, late Daljit Singh instituted Civil Suit No.730/2018 seeking possession and mesne profits, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 10th October, 2023. In revision against the said order, this Court on 29th April, 2024 set aside the order and passed a decree for possession in late Daljit Singh’s favour. However, the Supreme Court, in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11649/2024, has, as an interim measure, issued the following order:
2. There shall be stay of the judgment and order dated dated 29-04-2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CRP No. 4/2024 till the next date of hearing
3. List after service is complete.” [SIC]
2.7. In the context of these multiple proceedings between the parties before different forums, the complaint filed by Khushwant Kaur under Section 12 of the DV Act (V-27/2012) titled Khushwant Kaur v. Gagandeep Sidhu came to be decided on 07th March, 2020. The findings are summarised as follows:
(i) On the question whether Khushwant Kaur was an “ aggrieved person ” entitled to relief under the PWDV Act, the Trial Court found her version unreliable, noting contradictions in her allegations and absence of any contemporaneous complaint against the Respondent. The Court observed that the petition appeared to be a counter-blast to earlier proceedings initiated by the Respondent Gagandeep Sidhu under Section 12 of the DV Act and under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC.
(ii) The Trial Court also held that the Petitioner’s reliance on a
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 4 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
“ disownment notice ” of her son Saravjeet Singh was contrived and orchestrated. It emphasized that such notices have no dispositive legal effect on rights under the PWDV Act. The non-impleadment of Saravjeet Singh, despite his central role in the controversy, further undermined the Petitioner’s case.
(iii) The Court concluded that the Khushwant Kaur was not an aggrieved person within the meaning of the Act. Nonetheless, considering her age and right to peaceful residence, the Court injuncted the respondent and her family from contacting Khushwant Kaur or her husband, late Daljit Singh, and from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the first floor of the subject property.
(iv) The Court declined to grant compensation of INR 10,000/- per month as claimed. It held that the Respondent too had a recognised right of residence in the shared household i.e., the ground floor of the property, and could not be directed to vacate the same or to pay use/occupation charges. 2.8. The complaint filed by Gagandeep Sidhu under Section 12 of the DV Act (V-08/2012), was finally adjudicated by order dated 01st July, 2020. The Trial Court, held that the Petitioners were guilty of domestic abuse, and issued directions restraining them from committing any further acts of domestic violence against the Respondent. The Court further restrained the Petitioners herein from dispossessing the Respondent from the subject property and further prohibited them from entering or alienating the said property without following due process of law.
2.9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions, the parties carried the matter in appeal. Khushwant Kaur preferred Criminal Appeal No. 64/2020 challenging the order dated 07th March, 2020 passed in Complaint Case No.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 5 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
V-27/2012. Separately, late Daljit Singh and Khushwant Kaur jointly preferred Criminal Appeal No. 67/2020 against the order dated 01st July, 2020 arising from Complaint Case No. V-08/2012. For completeness, it may also be recorded that Saravjeet Singh (husband of the Respondent) filed an independent appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 68/2020, likewise directed against the order dated 01st July, 2020 passed in V-08/2012.
2.10. All three appeals were heard together and decided by a common order dated 27th April, 2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-03, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. By the said order, the Appellate Court dismissed all three appeals and declined to interfere with the respective decisions of the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners have preferred the present revision petitions before this Court. The following table sets out the particulars of the proceedings at each stage for clarity:
Complaint No. Proceedings Corresponding before the Appeal before the Trial Court Appellate Court V–27/2012 (filed Order dated 7th Crl. Appeal No. by Khushwant March, 2020 64/2020 filed against Kaur against passed by order dated 7th Gagandeep MM, Mahila March, 2020 , Sidhu) Court, East decided by common District, New order dated 27th Delhi April, 2021 V–08/2012 (filed Order dated 1st Crl. Appeal No. by Gagandeep July, 2020 67/2020 filed against Sidhu against passed by the order dated 1st July, Saravjeet Singh, MM, Mahila 2020 , decided by late Daljit Singh Court, East common order dated and Khushwant District, New 27th April, 2021 Kaur) Delhi
| Present | Revision |
|---|---|
| Petition | before this |
| Court |
Crl. Rev. P. 219/2021 filed by Khushwant Kaur – impugning the orders dated 7th March, 2020 and 27th April, 2021
Crl. Rev. P. 223/2021 filed by late Daljit Singh and Khushwant Kaur – impugning the orders dated 1st July, 2020 and 27th April, 2021
Submissions of the Petitioners
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 6 of 19
order dated 27th April, 2021 passed by the Appellate Court, as well as the underlying orders of the Trial Court, on the following grounds:
3.1. The Courts below failed to properly appreciate the material facts and evidence on record. The impugned orders rest upon conjectures and surmises rather than concrete findings. Mere vague and unsubstantiated allegations of domestic violence are insufficient to attract the provisions of the DV Act.
3.2. Late Daljit Singh (identified as Petitioner No.1) was the absolute and exclusive owner of the subject property. It is his self-acquired property and not ancestral. Consequently, the said property could not be treated as a “ shared household ” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the DV Act.
3.3. The Petitioners further rely upon subsequent proceedings. In Civil Suit No. 730/2018, an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC seeking a decree for possession was initially dismissed. In revision, by order dated 29th April, 2024, the suit was decreed by this Court in favour of the Petitioners, holding that late Daljit Singh was the absolute owner of the subject property and that it was his self-acquired asset . As regards mesne profits, the Petitioners note that the Revisional Court in C.R.P. No. 4/2024 directed the parties to lead evidence before the Trial Court for determination of the issue in accordance with law.
3.4. The subject property neither constitutes the matrimonial home nor the “ shared household ” of the Respondent, for the following reasons: (a) The property being the self-acquired property of late Daljit Singh, as upheld in the above civil proceedings, does not fall within the ambit of a shared household . The Appellate Court erred in observing that the Petitioners failed to produce the complete chain of title documents. All
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 7 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
requisite records were placed before the Court, establishing that the property exclusively belonged to late Daljit Singh.
(b) Under Section 17(1) of the DV Act, a wife’s right of residence arises only where the house belongs to her husband, is rented by him, or forms part of the joint family of which he is a member. None of these conditions are satisfied in the present case. The Respondent’s husband, Saravjeet Singh, has been residing separately in rented accommodation since 2011. The Respondent and her husband had earlier occupied the subject property merely as licensees, and the licence stood revoked when Saravjeet Singh was disowned by late Daljit Singh in 2011 through a public notice. Consequently, the subject property cannot be deemed a shared household within the meaning of the DV Act.
3.5. The Respondent is in illegal occupation of the premises and, in fact, resides with her mother and minor daughter elsewhere. Reliance is placed on the electricity consumption records, showing a usage of merely 28W, which indicates that no one resides in the property. Respondent’s occupation is motivated by an intent to harass and usurp the property. Considering that the Petitioners are senior citizens who depend upon rental income, it is prayed that the Respondent be directed to vacate the premises or, alternatively, to pay use and occupation charges of INR 10,000 per month.
3.6. The reliefs granted under the DV Act, particularly the restraint on alienation of the subject property, in effect operate as an injunction against the lawful owner. The Petitioners contend that such directions travel beyond the limited scope of the DV Act, which is a summary jurisdiction intended to secure protection from domestic violence, not to adjudicate proprietary or possessory rights.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 8 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
3.7. Even assuming past cohabitation, there existed no domestic relationship between the parties at the time of filing of the complaint, as the Respondent and her husband had been residing separately since 2011. The right of residence under Section 17 of the DV Act presupposes a subsisting domestic relationship; once cohabitation ceased and the parties began living apart, the claim of residence no longer survived. The impugned orders, in effect, granted an injunction against the Petitioners, who are the lawful owners of the subject property, without satisfying the statutory conditions contemplated under Section 19(1)(a) to (f) of the DV Act.
3.8. In the alternative, the Petitioners advance principles of equity and submit that even if the Respondent is found entitled to protection from domestic violence, such protection need not entail continued residence in the subject property. It is submitted that the objectives of the statute could equally have been achieved by directing provision of suitable alternate accommodation or monetary assistance under Section 19(1)(f), thereby balancing the Respondent’s right of protection with the Petitioners’ ownership rights and advanced age.
Submissions of the Respondent:
4.1. There is ample material on record that establishes that the subject property constitutes a shared household within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the DV Act. The Respondent began residing in the said property immediately after her marriage and continued during the subsistence of her
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 9 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
domestic relationship with her husband. She was unlawfully attempted to be dispossessed from the premises on 2nd November, 2011 by the Petitioners and her husband without notice or due process. The contention that she has no right of residence stood rejected in multiple proceedings between the parties.
4.2. The Petitioners’ claim that the subject property is the self-acquired and exclusive property of late Daljit Singh is misconceived and based on unreliable and fabricated documents. In its order dated 7th March, 2020, the Trial Court also noted the false and incomplete chain of documents produced by the Petitioners and rightly held that the Respondent’s right of residence stood protected under the statute.
4.3. The Trial Court’s order dated 01st July, 2020 merely directed that the Respondent shall not be evicted from the property without following due process of law. Such a direction does not confer ownership but merely protects her statutory right of residence guaranteed under Sections 17 and 19 of the DV Act. The protection order, therefore, is in consonance with law and necessary to prevent unlawful dispossession. The Respondent continues to remain in lawful possession and cannot be characterised as a trespasser. Consequently, the reliefs of mandatory injunction or mesne profits claimed by the Petitioners are unsustainable.
Analysis
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 10 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
the matrimonial home of the Respondent and her husband. The Respondent asserts a statutory right of residence therein under the DV Act, whereas the Petitioners claim exclusive ownership and seek her eviction, contending that the property is the self-acquired estate of late Daljit Singh and cannot be deemed a shared household .
Limited scope of revisional jurisdiction
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 11 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
principle is well settled in the Supreme Court decisions of State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri3 and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke4 . Measured against that yardstick, the inquiry here is confined to whether the Courts below misdirected themselves in law in recognising the Respondent’s residence protection.
Statutory framework
3 (1999) 2 SCC 452.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 12 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
portions, and importantly for present purposes, to restrain alienation or encumbrance of the shared household [Section 19(1)(a) to (d)], and to order suitable alternate accommodation or monetary relief where appropriate [Section 19(1)(f)].
The precedent
4 (2015) 3 SCC 123.
5 (2021) 1 SCC 414.
6 (2007) 3 SCC 169.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 13 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
Satish Chander Ahuja .
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 14 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
Question of Actual Residence and Electricity Consumption
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 15 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
On balancing competing interests
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 16 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
interests must be balanced. On one side stands the Respondent-daughter-inlaw, whose right of residence in the shared household is protected by statute; on the other is a senior-citizen Petitioner who seeks peace, privacy, and the ability to enjoy their property without intrusion.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 17 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
substitute its own preference for a lawful exercise of discretion that accords with the object of the Act. Where protection can be secured by maintaining possession until due process is invoked in civil proceedings, the approach cannot be faulted.
Conclusion
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 18 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
protective umbrella of the DV Act.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
OCTOBER 16, 2025/ab
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 219/2021 & CRL.REV.P. 223/2021 Page 19 of 19
Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Da te:1 6.10.2025 21:23:56
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the ground floor of the subject property constitutes a shared household under Section 2(s) read with Section 17 of the DV Act despite being the self-acquired property of the father-in-law.
Whether the Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by restraining dispossession and alienation under Section 19 against the property's owners.
Whether electricity bills showing negligible consumption could displace concurrent findings that the respondent resided in the premises.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan NamboodiriRelied on¶8
(1999) 2 SCC 452 · Who else cites this
Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao PhalkeRelied on¶8
(2015) 3 SCC 123 · Who else cites this
Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha AhujaApplied¶11
(2021) 1 SCC 414 · Who else cites this
S.R. Batra v. Taruna BatraOverruled¶11
(2007) 3 SCC 169 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 3 enactments
Khushwant Kaur
Daljit Singh
Smt Gagandeep Sidhu
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
