Property exclusively owned by in-laws may constitute a "shared household" DV Act

Delhi High Court Upholds Woman's Right to Reside in In-Laws' Property Under Domestic Violence Act. Court affirms woman's residence rights in shared household, dismisses revision petitions by in-laws, emphasizing protection against dispossession.

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjeev Narula, upheld the residence rights of a woman under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, affirming that a property owned by in-laws can constitute a "shared household" if the aggrieved woman lived there with her husband in a domestic relationship. The court dismissed the revision petitions filed by Khushwant Kaur, the mother-in-law, challenging the orders protecting the residence rights of her daughter-in-law, Gagandeep Sidhu.

The judgment stems from a long-standing family dispute where Gagandeep Sidhu, after her marriage to Saravjeet Singh, resided in her matrimonial home, which is owned by her in-laws. Following marital discord, legal battles ensued, with allegations of domestic violence and disputes over property rights.

The Delhi High Court emphasized that the ownership of the property is immaterial in determining the right of residence under the DV Act. The court reiterated that a woman's right to reside in a shared household does not hinge on ownership or title, but rather on the fact that she lived there in a domestic relationship.

The court also highlighted the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code, noting that interference is warranted only when an order is illegal or perverse. It declined to re-evaluate evidence that was not part of the trial record, such as electricity bills purportedly indicating non-occupation.

The ruling ensures that protective orders under the DV Act safeguard against dispossession without due process, maintaining the status quo and preventing alienation of the shared household. The court balanced the interests of both parties, ensuring that the daughter-in-law's right of residence is protected while not depriving the in-laws of their property rights.

The decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting women's rights under the DV Act, ensuring they are not left shelter-less after marital breakdowns. The court clarified that the judgment does not adjudicate property title or ownership, which are matters for civil courts.

Bottom Line:

Property exclusively owned by in-laws may constitute a "shared household" under Section 2(s) of the DV Act if the aggrieved woman lived there with her husband in a domestic relationship. Ownership of the property is immaterial for the application of Section 17 of the DV Act.

Statutory provision(s): Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(s), 17, 19, 26; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 397, 401.

Khushwant Kaur v. Smt Gagandeep Sidhu, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2795593