The right of a woman to reside in her shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) has been one of the most litigated issues in matrimonial jurisprudence. Over the years, courts have clarified that while this right is protected, it is not absolute nor does it create a proprietary interest.
Delhi High Court’s 2025 decision in Sangeeta v. Hitesh Kumar provides a definitive and comprehensive answer. The Court examined whether a divorced wife can continue to claim a shared household right in the property solely owned by her former husband. The judgment also revisits the principles of residence rights, ownership, domestic relationship, and the limitations of the shared household doctrine.
Facts of the Case
The case concerns a matrimonial dispute that extended into a property and possession conflict between former spouses. The appellant, Sangeeta, and the respondent, Hitesh Kumar, were married on 11 September 2000 and lived together until 29 April 2007. Their son was born in 2006.
During the subsistence of the marriage, Hitesh purchased a property situated at B-6, Shani Bazar Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, through a registered Sale Deed dated 9 August 2005, executed exclusively in his name and for a consideration of ₹80,000.
He funded the purchase by taking a loan of ₹1,00,000 from the Delhi Co-operative Commercial Thrift and Credit Society, also in his sole name. These facts—including the exclusive ownership—were admitted by the wife in her written statement and cross-examination, though she asserted that she contributed to the purchase by paying a few loan instalments from her own account.
Marital relations deteriorated, and Hitesh initiated divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which culminated in a decree of divorce on 21 July 2010. The wife challenged the decree at every level, including a matrimonial appeal, an SLP, a review petition, and finally a curative petition; each challenge was dismissed sequentially by the High Court and then the Supreme Court, thereby rendering the decree final.
After the divorce, the husband sent a legal notice on 17 August 2010, requesting Sangeeta to vacate the property and pay damages for unauthorised occupation. She did not vacate. Consequently, he instituted a civil suit for possession, damages, and mesne profits, which the Trial Court decreed in 2015 by granting possession to the husband and awarding damages of ₹3,000 per month. Aggrieved, the wife preferred the present first appeal before the Delhi High Court.
Issues Before the Court
The appeal presented four core issues for consideration:
- Whether the appellant established any right, title, or interest in the suit property by claiming contribution towards its purchase, thereby making her a co-owner.
- Whether the property constituted the appellant’s “shared household” within the meaning of Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, enabling her to continue residing there despite the dissolution of marriage.
- Whether the decree of possession granted by the Trial Court in favour of the respondent (exclusive owner) was legal and justified.
- Whether the Trial Court was correct in awarding damages/mesne profits against the appellant for her occupation of the premises after the divorce.
Judgment and Legal Reasoning
1. Claim of Co-ownership
The Court firmly rejected the wife’s plea of co-ownership. The registered Sale Deed, an undisputed and valid document, stood solely in the respondent’s name. The law presumes such a registered document to be valid unless disproved, and no challenge had been made to its execution or validity.
The appellant admitted that the husband had purchased the property for ₹80,000 from his own funds and that the loan was obtained in his sole name. Although the wife claimed to have paid some instalments towards the repayment of this loan, the Court held that such payments could have arisen from internal arrangements within the marriage and could not, by themselves, constitute consideration for acquiring ownership rights.
The payment of instalments did not transform her into a co-owner; at best, such payments could be treated as contributions or loans within the marital relationship. The Trial Court’s factual findings on exclusive ownership were affirmed, and the argument that managerial or domestic duties confer ownership rights was dismissed.
2. Whether the Property Was a “Shared Household” Post-Divorce
The appellant’s primary defence was that the property was her shared household, and she therefore had an enforceable right to reside in it even after the divorce. The High Court examined the statutory framework under Sections 2(f), 2(s), and 17 of the PWDV Act and reiterated that the right to reside in a shared household is anchored in the existence of a domestic relationship.
The Court explained that a domestic relationship—defined as a relationship between two persons living together when related by marriage—must be subsisting for the right under Section 17 to operate.
Crucially, once a decree of divorce is passed and becomes final, the domestic relationship ceases. With this, the foundation of the right to reside in a shared household collapses.
The Court relied on recent decisions, including Smita Jina v. Amit Kumar Jina (2025) and Kuldeep Kaur v. Swaran Kaur (2025), to hold that while Section 17 protects a woman from being unlawfully dispossessed during marriage, it does not confer indefinite occupancy rights post-divorce, nor does it amount to a proprietary or perpetual residence right.
The Court emphasised that lawful civil proceedings for eviction, possession, or partition are not barred by Section 17, and the right to reside must always give way to due process.
Therefore, the appellant could not claim protection under the PWDV Act once the marriage had already been dissolved in 2010, long before the possession suit was decided.
3. Legality of the Possession Decree
Having affirmed that the property belonged exclusively to the respondent and that the shared household argument had no force post-divorce, the Court held that the husband was well within his legal rights to seek recovery of possession. He had served a notice demanding possession, and upon the appellant’s refusal to vacate, he pursued lawful civil remedies.
The Court found no error, perversity, or illegality in the Trial Court’s decree granting possession to the owner. The decree of possession was therefore upheld.
4. Damages and Mesne Profits
The only relief granted to the appellant was on the quantum of damages. The Trial Court had awarded mesne profits/damages of ₹3,000 per month from the date of filing the suit. The High Court noted that the appellant had resided in the property during the marriage with the husband’s consent.
Although the relationship later soured, her occupation had initially been permissive. Additionally, the husband himself admitted that the wife had paid some instalments of the loan.
Considering the overall factual context and the intertwined nature of matrimonial cohabitation, the Court held that awarding mesne profits was not justified. Thus, the decree of damages was set aside, though the decree for possession remained undisturbed.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s judgment reaffirms key principles governing property rights and residence rights after matrimonial breakdown. It clarifies that:
- A woman cannot claim ownership in her husband’s self-acquired property without demonstrating substantial contribution to its purchase.
- The right to reside in a shared household under the PWDV Act requires a subsisting domestic relationship; it does not survive divorce.
- The exclusive owner retains the right to recover possession through lawful civil proceedings.
- Damages for post-divorce occupation may not be appropriate where contributions or marital circumstances mitigate strict liability.
Ultimately, the appeal was partly allowed, with the decree of possession upheld and the award of damages set aside. The Court’s balanced approach protects the rights of property owners while preventing misuse of shared household provisions beyond the life of a marriage.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams