Delhi High Court: An appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the correctness of order dated 22-3-2024 (‘Impugned Order’) passed by the Family Court, whereby the suit for possession, damages, use and occupation charges, permanent as well as mandatory injunction was passed in favour of the respondent, whereby the Family Court had stated that the appellant’s right if any in the suit property was that of a gratuitous licensee, whose right of residence stood revoked through the notices. The Family Court after taking note of the divorce decree observed that the appellant had no enforceable right to remain on the premises and the appellant was granted six months to vacate the property.
A Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal* and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar JJ., observed that once the marriage stood dissolved by a valid decree of divorce, the domestic relationship came to an end. Thus, the substratum upon which the right of residence is founded under Section 17 DV Act, no longer survives, unless a contrary statutory right is shown to persist. The Court finding no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Family Court dismissed the appeal.
Background:
The present Appeal arose from a family dispute involving matrimonial and property rights. The appellant was the daughter-in-law of the original plaintiff (respondent before the Family Court), who is now deceased. The appellant had married the respondent’s son on 13-4-1999 as per Hindu rites, and they were blessed with a son on 7-2-2000. The dispute concerned the property at D-2/217, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi (‘suit property’), which the appellant claimed was her matrimonial home since her marriage.
The appellant had submitted that the property was initially purchased in her husband’s name and later transferred to the respondent under duress due to strained relations, and that she had (personally or through her family) contributed financially to the construction of suit property. This was supported by her brother’s testimony who claimed having contributed Rs 60,000 in 1998. The Appellant also alleged cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws, and claimed ancestral contributions to the construction of the property.
The appellant had further submitted that false allegations were levelled against her about an unidentified person residing with her, which led her husband to institute divorce proceedings in response of which she had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’), which was dismissed on ground of maintainability, without examination of the merits. During the pendency of the civil suit, the respondent passed away and was substituted by her legal heirs (daughter). A divorce decree was passed on 19-11-2019 and upheld in appeal solely on ground of limitation but later set aside by the Supreme Court and remanded for fresh hearing, which was listed for 9-10-2025.
Notices revoking permission to stay were issued on 23-7-2013 and 20-12-2013, but the appellant failed to vacate and allegedly tried to sell or create third-party rights in the property. The respondent had thus instituted a suit seeking possession of the suit property, damages for unauthorized use and occupation, as well as a decree of injunction restraining the appellant from alienating, encumbering or creating third-party interest therein
The Family Court, in its Impugned order dated 22-3-2024, stated that the respondent had proven ownership via the 2011 Conveyance Deed, while the appellant had failed to prove financial contribution. Even if any contribution was presumed, it did not override the respondent’s title as absolute owner. The Family Court had further noted that the appellant’s right if any was that of a gratuitous licensee, whose right of residence stood revoked through the notices. The Family Court after taking note of the divorce decree had observed that the appellant had no enforceable right to remain on the premises and the appellant was granted six months to vacate the property. Further a decree of possession and permanent injunction was passed in favour of the respondent, though damages for unauthorized use and occupation were denied for lack of evidence. Thus, the present appeal was filed before the Court.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that Section 17 DV Act conferred upon every woman in a domestic relationship the right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of whether she had any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. The Court further observed that this right is not indefeasible, it does not create a proprietary interest in the property, and it is subject to lawful eviction in accordance with due process.
It was further observed that statutory protections under Section 17 DV Act were firmly anchored in the existence of a “domestic relationship.” Once the marriage stood dissolved by a valid decree of divorce, the domestic relationship came to an end. Thus, the substratum upon which the right of residence is founded under Section 17 DV Act, no longer survives, unless a contrary statutory right is shown to persist. In the present case, the appellant’s marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 19-11-2019. Although the said decree was challenged by the appellant and the matter stood remanded for fresh adjudication, as on date there was no subsisting matrimonial bond or domestic relationship between the parties. In the absence of such a relationship, the foundational requirement for invoking Section 17 of the PWDV Act was lacking. The Court, thus observed that the appellant’s assertion of a continuing right of residence under the DV Act was materially weakened, subject to outcome of her pending appeal.
The Court next shifted its focus on the question of ownership and possession of the suit property. The Court noted that while the respondents claim was based on will dated 20-7-2013, allegedly executed by the deceased respondent in favour of her daughter, the appellant disputed genuineness of the will, terming it forged and fabricated.
The Court further observed that the will was duly produced and proved through PW 3, one of the attesting witnesses. While in cross-examination he was unable to recall the name of the other attesting witness and was confronted with unfounded suggestions of monetary inducement, these lapses did not, in themselves, shake the core of his testimony or the legal validity of the execution. Since the document had the requisite signatures and satisfied the statutory requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the Will stood duly proved, and the respondents’ title flowing therefrom could not be doubted.
The Court while placing reliance on the Relinquishment Deed dated 1-11-2016, allegedly executed by appellant’ husband in favour of his sister observed that the appellant had failed to substantiate her claim that the deed was a collusive device created to defeat her claim of residence. The Court noted that the Family Court had rightly placed reliance on the registered Conveyance Deed dated 7-6-2011, which independently established that the title in the suit property vested in the deceased Respondent, and thereafter devolved in terms of the Will.
The Court further noted that the appellant’s submission that PW 1 could not recall the precise details of the original acquisition did not dilute the evidentiary worth of the registered documents and the burden lay upon the appellant to prove her plea of contribution or duress, which she had failed to discharge.
The Court while considering the appellants plea about the suit property being ancestral or her family having contributed towards its acquisition observed that the evidence adduced fell short of establishing any legal or equitable interest of the appellant in the suit property. Further the assertion that the appellant’s brother, had advanced a sum of Rs 60,000 in 1998 remained uncorroborated by any documentary proof. The Court observed that while oral testimony reflected the witness’s belief, it did not satisfy the evidentiary standard necessary to dislodge the registered title documents produced by the respondents. The Court thus observed that the appellant’s claim of contribution could not translate into an enforceable proprietary right.
The Court with regards to eviction of appellant from suit property observed that notices revoking the appellant’s permissive occupation were issued as far back as 2013, followed by the institution of the possession suit. The Court further observed that the Family Court decreed possession only after a comprehensive appraisal of the pleadings and evidence and even granted the appellant six months’ time to vacate, thus, the process was neither arbitrary nor equitable.
The Court, thus finding no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Family Court dismissed the present appeal along with all pending applications.
[X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5593, decided on 21-8-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Anil Kshetarpal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: J. C. Mahindro, Advocates
For the Respondent: Sanjay Kumar Chhikana and Mr. Ujjwal Arora, Advocates.
