When a marriage breaks down, one of the most pressing questions concerns the woman’s right to reside in her matrimonial home—especially when the property legally belongs to her in-laws. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) was enacted to shield women from domestic abuse and ensure secure residence, but its practical application often collides with the property rights of other family members.
A recent Delhi High Court judgment in Khushwant Kaur v. Gagandeep Sidhu (2025) revisited this tension. The Court held that a woman’s right of residence in a shared household continues even after cohabitation ends, and she cannot be evicted without due process of law, regardless of whether the house belongs to her husband or his parents.
This landmark decision clarifies the legal balance between ownership and protection under the DV Act, emphasising that residence orders protect women from unlawful dispossession—not confer title.
Background of the Case
The Parties and the Property
Respondent Gagandeep Sidhu married Saravjeet Singh on 14 November 2010 and moved into her matrimonial home located at 11/8, Gali Nos. 1 & 2, Old Gobindpura Extension, Delhi. Her in-laws, Daljit Singh and Khushwant Kaur, owned and resided in the same house.
Soon after the marriage, disputes arose between the couple and the parents-in-law. The husband and wife shifted to a rented accommodation on 1 November 2011. However, when the respondent later tried to return, she found her belongings being removed, which triggered multiple litigations.
Series of Legal Proceedings
Civil Litigation
The father-in-law, Daljit Singh, filed Civil Suit No. 248/2011 for injunction and mesne profits, alleging that the daughter-in-law had forcibly occupied the ground floor of the house. The court declined to grant possession, noting the absence of a licence agreement but restraining her from obstructing the in-laws’ ingress and egress.
Later, Daljit Singh filed another Civil Suit No. 730/2018 seeking possession and mesne profits. Although initially dismissed, it was decreed in his favour by the High Court in April 2024. However, the Supreme Court stayed that decree pending appeal.
Cross-Complaints under the DV Act
Both parties invoked the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:
- Complaint V-08/2012: Filed by Gagandeep Sidhu against her husband and in-laws seeking residence protection.
- Complaint V-27/2012: Filed by Khushwant Kaur (mother-in-law) seeking protection from alleged harassment by Gagandeep Sidhu.
The Mahila Court, on 1 July 2020, held that Gagandeep was an aggrieved person under the DV Act, restrained the in-laws from evicting her, and prohibited alienation of the property without due process
Conversely, Khushwant Kaur’s counter-complaint was dismissed on 7 March 2020, with the court finding her allegations unsubstantiated but protecting her right to peaceful residence on the first floor.
Appeals and Revisions
All appeals were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 27 April 2021, upholding the lower courts’ decisions. The in-laws then approached the Delhi High Court in Crl. Rev. P. 219 & 223 of 2021, leading to the present judgment.
Petitioners’ (In-Laws’) Contentions
Counsel for the petitioners argued that:
- Ownership overrides residence rights — The house was the self-acquired property of late Daljit Singh and not part of any joint family; hence, it could not be a “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the DV Act.
- Disownment of the husband — Saravjeet Singh had been disowned through a public notice, and therefore, his wife had no residence rights.
- No subsisting domestic relationship — Since the couple had been living separately since 2011, there was no ongoing domestic relationship when the complaint was filed.
- Misuse of DV Act — The Act provides only summary relief; using it to bar the lawful owner from his own property amounted to misuse.
- Alternative accommodation — Even if protection were warranted, the wife should have been directed to find an alternate residence or accept monetary compensation under Section 19(1)(f), not continue occupying the premises.
Respondent’s (Daughter-in-Law’s) Stand
Counsel for Gagandeep Sidhu defended the concurrent findings, arguing:
- She had resided in the house immediately after marriage, making it a shared household under Section 2(s) of the DV Act.
- The attempt to dispossess her on 2 November 2011 without due process constituted domestic violence.
- Ownership is immaterial under Section 17(1); every woman in a domestic relationship has a statutory right of residence.
- The protection order did not create ownership but merely restrained illegal eviction.
Issues Before the Court
- Does a woman’s right to reside in a shared household continue after separation from her husband?
- Can a daughter-in-law be evicted from a property solely owned by her in-laws?
- Was the Magistrate justified in restraining the eviction and alienation of the property under the DV Act?
Court’s Analysis
1. Limited Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction
The Court first emphasised that its jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is supervisory, not appellate. It cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a patent illegality or perversity.
Hence, the High Court restricted itself to examining whether the lower courts’ findings were legally unsound.
2. Meaning of “Shared Household”
The judgment relied on the statutory scheme of the DV Act:
- Section 2(s): Defines “shared household” as any house where the aggrieved woman lives or has lived in a domestic relationship.
- Section 17(1): Grants every woman the right to reside in such a shared household, irrespective of ownership.
- Section 17(2): Bars eviction except in accordance with due process of law.
Thus, once the woman demonstrates that she lived in the premises with her husband, the property qualifies as a shared household.
3. Reliance on Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021)
The High Court extensively quoted Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja [(2021) 1 SCC 414], where the Supreme Court overruled the restrictive precedent of S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007).
The Court reiterated that ownership is irrelevant—a property belonging exclusively to in-laws can still be a shared household if the woman lived there in a domestic relationship with her husband.
This interpretation aligns with the DV Act’s protective and social welfare objective, ensuring that a woman is not rendered homeless because of strained relations.
4. Cohabitation Not Required to Be Continuous
Rejecting the petitioners’ claim that the right ceased after separation, the Court clarified that Section 2(f) includes relationships where the parties “have at any point of time lived together” in a shared household.
Therefore, the right of residence survives the breakdown of cohabitation. Evicting the woman without due process would undermine the Act’s intent to protect women after marital discord.
5. Validity of the Protection Order
The petitioners had argued that restraining alienation and eviction exceeded the DV Court’s powers. The High Court rejected this, citing Section 19(1)(d), which explicitly empowers courts to restrain the respondent from alienating or encumbering the shared household.
Such orders, the Court clarified, do not confer ownership but preserve the status quo to prevent unlawful eviction.
6. Electricity Bills and Actual Residence
The petitioners produced low electricity bills to suggest that Gagandeep no longer lived in the property. The Court dismissed this argument, calling it speculative.
Low consumption could arise from several factors and cannot override concurrent factual findings that she resided there. Moreover, new evidence cannot be introduced at the revision stage.
7. Balancing Competing Interests
Acknowledging that Daljit Singh (father-in-law) had passed away, the Court recognised the need to balance the daughter-in-law’s statutory protection with the mother-in-law’s rights as a senior citizen.
The existing arrangement—where Gagandeep occupied the ground floor and Khushwant Kaur the first floor—was deemed sufficient to protect both sides. This physical segregation, the Court noted, reflected the proportionality principle under the DV Act, ensuring protection without displacing ownership.
8. Coexistence of Civil and DV Proceedings
The High Court clarified that civil suits over ownership or mesne profits can proceed independently of DV Act remedies. Section 26 of the DV Act allows reliefs to be claimed before civil or criminal courts simultaneously.
Hence, the pendency of the Supreme Court’s stay on civil decrees did not restrict the DV Court from granting residence protection.
Judgment and Outcome
The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Mahila Court and the Appellate Court, holding that:
- The ground floor of the house is a shared household.
- The respondent’s right of residence under Section 17 of the DV Act remains valid.
- The restraints on eviction and alienation under Section 19 were lawful.
- The revision petitions were dismissed.
Importantly, the Court clarified that it did not adjudicate on ownership or mesne profits, which remain pending before civil courts and the Supreme Court.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice Sanjeev Narula stated:
In the result, the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court disclose neither illegality nor perversity. The subject premises qualifies as a shared household within Section 2(s); the Respondent’s right of residence under Section 17 stands attracted; and the residence orders under Section 19, including restraints against dispossession and alienation, fall well within jurisdiction and purpose. The revision petitions therefore fail.
Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed
1. Ownership Irrelevant for Residence Right: A woman’s right to reside in her matrimonial home does not depend on ownership or title. What matters is prior residence in a domestic relationship.
2. Right Survives Separation: The right of residence continues even if the couple is no longer cohabiting. Separation or disownment cannot extinguish statutory protection.
3. Eviction Only by Due Process: A woman cannot be forcibly evicted from the shared household. Only lawful eviction through a proper judicial process is permissible.
4. Protection Orders Do Not Confer Ownership: Orders under the DV Act merely safeguard residence; they do not transfer property rights or limit the owner’s ability to pursue civil remedies.
5. Coexistence and Proportionality: Courts should aim to balance protection with ownership, allowing coexistence where feasible instead of ordering immediate eviction or displacement.
Judicial Reasoning in Broader Perspective
The judgment exemplifies the judiciary’s shift toward a gender-sensitive interpretation of domestic laws. Earlier, S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra had confined the term “shared household” only to property owned or rented by the husband, effectively excluding homes owned by in-laws. This narrow view often left women homeless after marital breakdowns.
The Supreme Court’s corrective in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja and its reaffirmation in Khushwant Kaur v. Gagandeep Sidhu signify that the right to shelter forms part of the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The DV Act operationalises this right in the domestic context.
Moreover, by emphasising due process and coexistence, the High Court also safeguards senior citizens’ property rights, ensuring that protection under the DV Act does not evolve into perpetual occupation beyond necessity.
Implications of the Judgment
- For Women – The decision fortifies the residence rights of women who face eviction after separation or conflict, assuring that ownership disputes cannot nullify statutory protection.
- For Property Owners – Parents-in-law can still assert ownership through civil suits, but cannot resort to self-help eviction or coercion.
- For Courts – The judgment offers guidance on balancing competing claims, encouraging pragmatic solutions like separate living arrangements.
- For Society – It underscores that the DV Act is not just a penal measure but a social welfare statute designed to prevent destitution and homelessness of women.
Conclusion
Delhi High Court’s decision in Khushwant Kaur v. Gagandeep Sidhu resolves a recurring dilemma in matrimonial disputes—can a woman be evicted from her shared home after a relationship breakdown? The answer is a firm no, unless due process of law is followed.
Justice Sanjeev Narula’s ruling reinforces the humanitarian essence of the DV Act. While property rights remain with the lawful owner, a woman’s right to shelter and security within her matrimonial home is a protected statutory entitlement.
By upholding coexistence and fairness, the judgment ensures that neither ownership nor protection becomes absolute, preserving both human dignity and the rule of law.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams