“A plain reading of Section 17 DV Act 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, it does not create a proprietary interest in the property and is subject to lawful eviction in accordance with due process.”
Delhi High Court: An appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 was preferred against the Family Court’s order dated 22-3-2024 (“impugned order”). By this order, the Family Court directed possession, damages, use and occupation charges, and issued injunctions in favour of the respondent. It observed that the appellant was only a gratuitous licensee in the property, and her right of residence had already been revoked by prior notices. Referring to the divorce decree, the Court held that the appellant had no surviving or enforceable right to remain in the premises and accordingly granted her six months’ time to vacate.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal* and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that upon dissolution of marriage through a valid decree of divorce, the domestic relationship comes to an end. Consequently, the foundation for claiming a right of residence under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act also ceases, unless sustained by some other statutory provision. Concluding that the Family Court’s decision suffered from no infirmity, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Background:
The present appeal arises from a family dispute involving matrimonial and property rights. The appellant, daughter-in-law of the original plaintiff (now deceased), married the respondent’s son on 13-4-1999 in accordance with Hindu rites, and the couple had a son on 7-2-2000. The controversy relates to property located at D-2/217, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi (“suit property”), which the appellant claimed as her matrimonial home since marriage.
The appellant contended that the property was initially purchased in her husband’s name but was subsequently transferred to the respondent under coercion arising out of strained family ties. She further asserted that she and her family contributed financially towards the construction, with her brother deposing to have advanced ₹60,000 in 1998, and also claimed that ancestral resources were utilized for the same. In addition, she accused her husband and in-laws of cruelty and harassment, alleging that false imputations about her association with an unknown individual led her husband to initiate divorce proceedings.
The appellant thereafter filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), which was dismissed at the threshold as not maintainable. During the pendency of the civil proceedings, the respondent passed away and was substituted by his daughter as legal heir. Meanwhile, a decree of divorce was granted on 19-11-2019 and upheld in appeal solely on the ground of limitation. However, the Supreme Court subsequently set aside the decree and remanded the matter for reconsideration, which is now fixed for 9-10-2025.
In the meantime, notices revoking the appellant’s permission to reside in the suit property were issued on 23-7-2013 and 20-12-2013. Despite this, she neither vacated the premises nor surrendered possession and was alleged to have attempted to sell or create third-party interests therein. Consequently, the respondent instituted a suit seeking possession, damages for unauthorised use and occupation, and an injunction restraining alienation or encumbrance of the property.
By the impugned order dated 22-3-2024, the Family Court held that the respondent had established ownership through the 2011 Conveyance Deed, while the appellant failed to prove any financial contribution. The Court observed that even if such contribution were assumed, it would not override the respondent’s absolute ownership. It further held that the appellant’s status was only that of a gratuitous licensee, whose right of residence stood revoked by the notices. Relying also on the divorce decree, the Court found that she had no enforceable right to continue residing in the premises and allowed six months’ time to vacate.
Accordingly, a decree of possession and permanent injunction was passed in favour of the respondent, though the claim for damages was rejected for want of proof. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court reiterated that Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act grants every woman in a domestic relationship the right to reside in the shared household, regardless of ownership or title. However, this right is not absolute, as it does not confer proprietary interest and is subject to lawful eviction through due process. Crucially, the protection under Section 17 is contingent on the existence of a “domestic relationship.” Once a valid decree of divorce dissolves the marriage, the relationship ceases, and with it, the foundation for claiming residence under the provision—unless another statutory right can be shown.
In the present case, the appellant’s marriage had been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 19-11-2019. Though the decree was later remanded for reconsideration, there was presently no subsisting matrimonial bond or domestic relationship between the parties. In such circumstances, the essential precondition for invoking Section 17 was absent, substantially weakening the appellant’s claim to a continuing right of residence, pending her appeal.
On the issue of ownership, the respondents relied on a will dated 20-7-2013, allegedly executed by the deceased respondent in favour of her daughter, which the appellant disputed as forged. The Court noted that the will was proved through PW-3, one of the attesting witnesses. While his cross-examination revealed lapses in memory and suggestions of inducement, these were insufficient to undermine the substance of his testimony or the validity of execution. As the document bore requisite signatures and satisfied the requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the will was held duly proved, confirming the respondents’ title.
Relying further on a Relinquishment Deed dated 1-11-2016 executed by the appellant’s husband in favour of his sister, the Court rejected the allegation that it was a collusive device to defeat the appellant’s claim. It also affirmed that the registered Conveyance Deed of 7-6-2011 independently established the deceased respondent’s ownership, which thereafter devolved under the will.
The Court dismissed the appellant’s contention that discrepancies in PW-1’s recollection of the property’s original acquisition weakened the respondents’ case, holding that registered documents carried overriding evidentiary value. The burden, it stressed, rested on the appellant to substantiate her claims of financial contribution or coercion, which she failed to discharge.
Her assertion that the property was ancestral, or that her family contributed to its purchase, was also found unsubstantiated. The alleged advance of ₹60,000 by her brother in 1998 was unsupported by documents, and oral testimony could not override registered title deeds. The Court held that such assertions did not confer any enforceable right.
With respect to eviction, the Court noted that notices revoking the appellant’s permissive occupation had been issued in 2013, followed by the possession suit. The Family Court, after considering the evidence, decreed possession and granted six months’ time to vacate. Finding the process fair and in accordance with law, the High Court upheld the decree and dismissed the appeal along with pending applications.