Delhi High Court | No Right of Residence Under Domestic Violence Act After Divorce Without Statutory Basis | Affirms Eviction of Daughter-in-Law, Upholds Ownership Through Will
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed an appeal challenging the decree of possession and injunction passed by the Family Court. The Bench held that the findings of the Family Court were well-reasoned and free from legal infirmity. The Court upheld the decree affirming the Respondents’ ownership and possession over the property in question, while rejecting the Appellant’s claim of residence or proprietary rights. The Court concluded that there was no ground to interfere with the order of the Family Court and dismissed the appeal along with all pending applications.
The dispute originated between the Appellant and the Respondent, who shared a familial and matrimonial relationship. The Appellant was married to the Respondent’s son on 13.04.1999, and a child was born from the marriage on 07.02.2000. The Appellant had been residing in the property located at D-2/217, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi since her marriage. The Respondent, who was the mother-in-law of the Appellant, later filed a suit seeking possession, damages, and injunction against the Appellant.
It was the case of the Appellant that the property constituted her matrimonial home and a shared household within the meaning of law. She alleged that the property was initially purchased in the name of her husband and was later transferred to the Respondent under duress. She further claimed that financial contributions for the purchase and construction of the property were made either personally or through her family. Her brother, as a witness, claimed to have contributed Rs. 60,000/- in 1998. The Appellant also alleged acts of cruelty by her husband and in-laws, and claimed that she was dispossessed from the property without any alternative accommodation.
The Appellant further argued that the Will relied upon by the Respondents, executed in favour of the Respondent’s daughter, was forged and fabricated. She also pointed to a Relinquishment Deed executed by her husband in 2016 to contest the Respondents’ claim of exclusive ownership. Additionally, she argued that her continuous residence since marriage conferred upon her rights of occupation as a legally wedded wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act).
The Respondents’ case before the Family Court was that the Respondent was the absolute owner of the property by virtue of a registered Conveyance Deed dated 07.06.2011. It was asserted that the Appellant and her husband were permitted to live there purely out of love and affection, without any legal rights being created. The Respondents alleged that the Appellant mistreated her husband and in-laws, exerted undue pressure to transfer the property in her name, and physically ousted the Respondent from the property. Notices were issued in 2013 revoking the permission granted to the Appellant to reside in the premises. The Respondents contended that the Appellant’s occupation thereafter was unlawful.
The Family Court, by order dated 22.03.2024, decreed the suit in favour of the Respondents. It held that the Respondent had duly proved ownership through the Conveyance Deed, and that the Appellant failed to substantiate her claim of contribution towards purchase or construction. It further held that the Appellant was a gratuitous licensee whose right to residence stood revoked. While granting the decree of possession and injunction, the Family Court declined damages for want of evidence. Six months’ time was given to the Appellant to vacate the property.
Aggrieved, the Appellant filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Before the High Court, her counsel reiterated that the property was her matrimonial home and a shared household under the PWDV Act. He challenged the authenticity of the Will and the Relinquishment Deed, alleged collusion between her husband and the Respondents, and argued that the eviction was coercive and premature. He also submitted that the Family Court failed to properly scrutinise disputed documents and factual controversies regarding ownership and title.
The Respondents’ counsel supported the Family Court’s decree, submitting that ownership and possession were lawfully proved. He argued that the Appellant had ceased to have any right of residence following dissolution of her marriage by decree of divorce on 19.11.2019. He further submitted that the Relinquishment Deed did not affect the lawful ownership of the Respondents, and that the Appellant’s claim of contribution was speculative and unsupported by evidence. The Respondents prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
The Division Bench recorded the issues for determination as: (i) Whether the Respondents had established ownership and possession of the property; (ii) Whether the Will dated 20.07.2013 was valid and capable of conferring title; (iii) Whether the Appellant contributed financially towards the property; and (iv) Whether the Appellant was entitled to reside in the property in view of the divorce decree.
The Bench observed: “It is not in dispute that the Appellant married Mr. Nanak Mehta on 13.04.1999 and thereafter took residence in the suit property.” The Court noted that the Appellant’s matrimonial relationship soon became strained and proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act and the PWDV Act were initiated. It recorded that the Appellant’s complaint under the PWDV Act was dismissed on maintainability grounds, and that a decree of divorce was passed on 19.11.2019. Although the Supreme Court condoned the delay and remanded the appeal for reconsideration, the High Court observed: “As on date there is no subsisting matrimonial bond or domestic relationship between the parties. In the absence of such a relationship, the foundational requirement for invoking Section 17 of the PWDV Act is lacking.”
Quoting Section 17 of the PWDV Act, the Court stated: “A plain reading of the provision confers upon every woman in a domestic relationship the right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of whether she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. However, this right is not indefeasible. It does not create a proprietary interest in the property and is subject to lawful eviction in accordance with due process.” The Bench further referred to the Supreme Court judgements in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja and Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi to note that protection under Section 17 flows from the existence of a domestic relationship.
With respect to ownership, the Court observed: “The Will, however, was duly produced and proved through PW-3, Mr. Prem Mahendru, one of the attesting witnesses… The document bears the requisite signatures and satisfies the statutory requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. Consequently, the Will stands duly proved, and the Respondents’ title flowing therefrom cannot be doubted.”
Regarding the Relinquishment Deed, the Court recorded: “Although the Appellant has urged that this was a collusive device to defeat her claim of residence, such an allegation remains wholly unsubstantiated. The Family Court has rightly placed reliance on the registered Conveyance Deed dated 07.06.2011, which independently establishes that the title in the suit property vested in the deceased Respondent, and thereafter devolved in terms of the Will.”
On the claim of contribution by the Appellant’s family, the Court stated: “The assertion that her brother advanced a sum of Rs. 60,000/- in 1998 remained uncorroborated by any documentary proof; indeed, the witness candidly admitted to not having any receipts or records of such payment. While the oral testimony may reflect the witness’s belief, it does not satisfy the evidentiary standard necessary to dislodge the registered title documents produced by the Respondents.”
The Court further observed that due process was followed in eviction proceedings. It recorded: “Notices revoking the Appellant’s permissive occupation were issued as far back as 2013, followed by the institution of the possession suit. The Appellant was afforded ample opportunity to defend her claim, and the Family Court decreed possession only after a comprehensive appraisal of the pleadings and evidence.” The Bench noted that the Appellant was granted six months to vacate the premises, which demonstrated that the process was not arbitrary.
The High Court concluded: “In light of the foregoing discussion on facts as well as the applicable legal principles, this Court finds no infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by the Family Court.” The Bench held that the findings of the Family Court were well-reasoned and based on fair appraisal of evidence. It stated: “The Family Court rightly decreed the suit in favour of the Respondents, affirming their title and possession over the suit property, and in rejecting the Appellant’s claim to continued residence or ownership rights. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere.”
Accordingly, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and ordered: “Having found no merit in the present appeal, the same stands dismissed, along with all pending applications.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. J. C. Mahindro, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chhikana and Mr. Ujjwal Arora, Advs.
Case Title: XXX v YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7098-DB
Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 348/2024
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetrapal, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
