Domestic Violence Protection and Residence Rights

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Sanjeev Narula of the Delhi High Court in the case of Khushwant Kaur v. Smt Gagandeep Sidhu and Ors. (2025) dismissed revision petitions challenging orders that protected a daughter-in-law's right to reside in her matrimonial home, clarifying the scope of residence rights under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).  

What was the Background of the Khushwant Kaur v. Smt Gagandeep Sidhu and Ors. (2025) Case? 

Marriage and Disputes: 

• Gagandeep Sidhu married Saravjeet Singh on November 14, 2010, and moved into the matrimonial home at Old Gobindpura Extension, Delhi, where her parents-in-law (Khushwant Kaur and late Daljit Singh) also resided. 
• The matrimonial relationship deteriorated, leading to disputes between Gagandeep and her in-laws. 

Competing Claims of Dispossession: 

• The petitioners claimed that due to marital discord, Gagandeep and her husband moved to rented accommodation on November 1, 2011, after they disowned their son through a public notice on October 29, 2011. 
• Gagandeep disputed this, claiming that on November 2, 2011, her belongings were being removed in an attempt to dispossess her against her wishes. 
• The petitioners alleged that Gagandeep forcibly entered and occupied the ground floor on the night of November 2, 2011. 

Multiple Legal Proceedings: 

• The petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 248/2011 seeking injunction and later Civil Suit No. 730/2018 seeking possession. 
• Gagandeep filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act (V-08/2012) against her husband and in-laws, claiming right of residence in the ground floor. 
• Khushwant Kaur filed a counter-complaint under the DV Act (V-27/2012) seeking protection and compensation. 

Court Decisions: 

• On March 7, 2020, the Trial Court in V-27/2012 found Khushwant Kaur was not an aggrieved person but injuncted Gagandeep from interfering with the first floor. Compensation was declined. 
• On July 1, 2020, the Trial Court in V-08/2012 held the petitioners guilty of domestic abuse and restrained them from dispossessing Gagandeep or alienating the property without due process. 
• All appeals were dismissed on April 27, 2021, by the Additional Sessions Judge. 
• The High Court decreed possession in favor of petitioners on April 29, 2024, but the Supreme Court stayed this judgment in SLP (Civil) No. 11649/2024. 
• The husband had been residing separately since 2011, and the couple occupied the property merely as licensees whose license was revoked. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Statutory Framework and Precedent: 

• The Court examined the DV Act provisions defining "shared household" (Section 2(s)), "domestic relationship" (Section 2(f)), and right of residence (Sections 17 and 19). It relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021), which clarified that: 
  • A wife's right of residence does not depend on property title. 
  • Property exclusively owned by in-laws may constitute a shared household if the woman lived there with her husband. 
  • Residence orders shield from dispossession but do not adjudicate title or confer proprietary rights. 

Court's Directions: 

• The Court dismissed the revision petitions, finding no illegality or perversity in concurrent findings. The premises qualified as a shared household, and residence orders fell within statutory jurisdiction and purpose. 
• The Court clarified that nothing in the judgment touches upon title, ownership, or mesne profits, which remain within civil court jurisdiction. The judgment concerns only the protective umbrella of the DV Act. 

Key Principles Established: 

• Shared household includes in-laws' properties where the woman lived with her husband. 
• Residence protection does not depend on property ownership or title. 
• Right of residence survives after separation, as the Act protects against consequences of separation. 
• DV courts can restrain alienation to preserve status quo and prevent dispossession. 
• Protection orders are safeguards preventing unlawful eviction but do not adjudicate title. 
• Fresh evidence cannot be introduced at revision stage to challenge concurrent factual findings.

What is the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005? 

About: 

• It is a social beneficial legislation enacted to protect women from domestic violence of all kinds. 
• It provides for effective protection of the rights of women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. 
• The preamble of this Act makes it clear that the reach of the Act is that violence, whether physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or economic, is all to be redressed by the statute. 
• This Act was brought into force by the Central Government and Ministry of Women and Child Development on 26th  October 2006. 

Purpose of DV Act:  

• The very purpose of enacting the DV Act was to provide for a remedy which is an amalgamation of the civil rights of the complainant i.e. aggrieved person. 
• It provides a remedy in the civil law for the protection of women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. 

Key Features: 

• Domestic Violence: Includes actual abuse or threat of abuse—physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, or economic—and harassment for dowry demands. 
• Aggrieved Person: Any woman in or having been in a domestic relationship who alleges violence, including wives, live-in partners, sisters, widows, mothers, and other female relatives. 
• Domestic Relationship: Covers persons who live or have lived together in a shared household through consanguinity, marriage, adoption, or relationships in the nature of marriage. 
• Shared Household: The household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, including properties owned or rented by the respondent. 
• Right of Residence (Section 17): Every woman in a domestic relationship has the right to reside in the shared household regardless of title or beneficial interest, and cannot be evicted except through due process. 
• Residence Orders (Section 19): Magistrates can restrain dispossession, direct respondents to remove themselves, restrain entry into specified portions, restrain alienation or encumbrance, and direct alternate accommodation or monetary relief. 
• Other Reliefs: Protection orders, monetary relief, custody orders, and compensation for losses due to domestic violence. 
• Summary Proceedings: Provides expeditious relief through summary proceedings before Magistrates with assistance from Protection Officers. 
• Non-Derogation (Section 26): Reliefs under this Act are in addition to rights available under other laws, allowing women to pursue civil and criminal remedies simultaneously.