Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld the preliminary decree of partition passed by the Family Court, declaring equal co-ownership rights in a jointly acquired property. The Court dismissed the appeal seeking to set aside the lower court's decree and stated that there was no legal barrier to the partition of the property in light of the admitted co-ownership. The Court further clarified that the statutory right of residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, cannot be used to indefinitely resist lawful claims of ownership or partition. The Court affirmed that the preliminary decree declaring both parties entitled to a 50% share in the property was legally sound and based on categorical admissions made by the appellant in her pleadings.

The present appeal was filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging an order passed by the Family Court, Patiala House, New Delhi. The Family Court, through its order dated 17.04.2025, allowed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, declaring that both parties were entitled to equal shares in the jointly owned property situated at C-5/18, 2nd Floor, Grand Vasant, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Retirement Of Colour-Blind Driver | Says Employer Must Reasonably Accommodate Disability Acquired During Service

The appellant and respondent were married on 30.01.2005, under Hindu rites in Bhilai, Chhattisgarh. They later moved to London, United Kingdom, on 30.07.2006 and stayed there for approximately eight years. During this period, they acquired British nationality and had a daughter born on 30.11.2009. On 28.06.2010, they jointly purchased the suit property in New Delhi through a sale deed registered on 01.07.2010. The purchase was financed by a joint housing loan of Rs. 2,00,00,000 from the State Bank of India, with the appellant's father acting as a guarantor. The appellant claimed to have contributed GBP 58,000 (approximately Rs. 50,00,000) towards the purchase.

After returning to India on 31.07.2014, the parties began residing in the suit property. Due to matrimonial discord, they started living separately from 30.07.2020. Subsequently, the appellant-initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by filing Complaint Case No. 11/2023 before the Mahila Court, Patiala House. The respondent, on the other hand, initiated guardianship proceedings seeking custody of the minor daughter. Both parties also filed cross-petitions under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which led to the dissolution of their marriage by a decree dated 20.03.2025.

Meanwhile, the respondent instituted a civil suit for partition of the jointly owned property and filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, seeking judgment based on admissions made by the appellant in her written statement. The Family Court allowed the application, issuing a preliminary decree declaring equal ownership.

The appellant challenged the decree, asserting that there was no unequivocal admission of equal ownership and that she had contributed over 60% of the funds. She contended that the property was her matrimonial home and fell within the definition of "shared household" under Section 17 of the PWDV Act. She argued that she and her minor daughter continued to reside in the property and that the partition would cause undue hardship.

The respondent, opposing the appeal, argued that the appellant had clearly admitted co-ownership in her written statement and had not denied joint purchase. He also cited the sale deed, which named both parties as joint owners without specifying ownership ratio. He expressed willingness to compensate the appellant with Rs. 4,00,00,000 for her 50% share or assist in purchasing alternate accommodation from the sale proceeds. He argued that the appellant, being professionally qualified and earning over Rs. 1,00,00,000 annually, had the means to secure alternative housing and could not indefinitely obstruct partition proceedings under the guise of residence rights.

The Court observed that "a plain reading of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC makes it evident that the legislative intent behind the provision is to empower the Court to expedite the disposal of cases by pronouncing judgment on the basis of clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal admissions made by a party." It further stated that such power "must be exercised with circumspection" and must be based on "categorical admissions leaving no room for doubt or interpretation."

The Court noted that the appellant had clearly admitted in her written statement that the property was jointly purchased with the respondent. It observed that "although in paragraph 8 of the Written Statement, the Appellant has vaguely averred that she contributed a ‘majority share,’ such assertions are neither supported by contemporaneous documentation nor do they constitute a categorical denial of co-ownership."

Regarding the sale deed, the Court recorded that it "reflects both parties as joint purchasers, without specifying any differentiated ratio in ownership." The Court noted that both parties continued to service the home loan in equal measure.

The Court applied Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, stating that "in the absence of any contrary intention or specification, where property is purchased jointly in the names of two or more persons, the share of each shall be deemed equal."

On the issue of matrimonial home and shared household, the Court quoted Section 17 of the PWDV Act and held that "the right to reside in a shared household, though protected, is not indefeasible and is subject to lawful eviction or exclusion as per due process." It clarified that this statutory right "does not create a proprietary right in favour of the aggrieved person, nor does it preclude lawful civil proceedings such as those for partition."

The Court addressed the appellant’s reliance on Section 17 of the PWDV Act and observed that "the Respondent is not seeking to evict the Appellant without following due process, but has initiated a civil action for partition of the jointly owned property." It further recorded that "the Appellant, who herself claims to be a co-owner, would not be rendered homeless by the mere fact of partition."

The Court further stated that "the statutory protection under Section 17 of the PWDV Act does not entitle a financially self-reliant woman to indefinitely resist the lawful partition of a jointly owned property."

The Court also noted that the judgments cited by the appellant, including S.R. Batra, Satish Chandra Ahuja, and Sapna, did not support her case. It clarified that "the objective of secure residence can be achieved by other lawful means, such as the allotment of a share in the partition or by provision of alternate accommodation."

The Court concluded its analysis by stating that "the Family Court has correctly appreciated the factual matrix and has arrived at a reasoned conclusion that the right of residence under the PWDV Act cannot operate as a bar to lawful partition proceedings initiated by a co-owner."

Also Read: Anaj Mandi Fire | Delhi High Court Upholds Charges Against Building Owner For Fire Safety Failures And Reckless Disregard Of Risk

The Court upheld the Family Court's preliminary decree, stating: "this Court finds no infirmity in the Impugned Order passed by the Family Court. The conclusions arrived at are well-reasoned, based on a fair appraisal of the pleadings and supported by the statutory framework."

It further directed that "the present Appeal, along with the pending applications, are accordingly dismissed." The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the present appeal and would not affect the merits of pending proceedings in the Family Court. As recorded: "the observations made hereinabove are confined to the adjudication of the present Appeal and shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the proceedings pending before the Family Court, which shall be decided uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Mr. Rajat Bhalla, Advocate with Appellant in Person

For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chopra, Mr. Mudit Talesara, Mr. Samarth Talesara, and Ms. Nandita Mishra, Advocates

Case Title: Smita Jina v. Amit Kumar Jina

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6421-DB

Case Number: MAT.APP. (F.C.) 270/2025

Bench: Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar