The High Court of Delhi, in a judgment dated November 13, 2025, has ruled that a wife’s right to residence in a “shared household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act) does not survive after the dissolution of the marriage by a final decree of divorce.
Justice Mini Pushkarna partly allowed an appeal filed by a woman challenging a trial court’s decree of possession granted in favour of her ex-husband for a property acquired solely by him. While the High Court upheld the decree for possession, it set aside the trial court’s order directing the wife to pay damages, noting her contribution towards the repayment of the property’s loan.
The judgment was delivered in an appeal (RFA 589/2015) which challenged a May 26, 2015 judgment of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Background of the Case
The parties, referred to as the appellant/wife and respondent/husband, were married on September 11, 2000, and have one son. The respondent-husband purchased the suit property in Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, through a registered Sale Deed dated August 9, 2005, executed exclusively in his name.
Due to differences, the husband initiated divorce proceedings, which were granted on July 21, 2010. This decree of divorce was challenged by the wife, but her appeals were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on February 18, 2013. Subsequent challenges by the wife, including an SLP, a Review Petition, and a Curative Petition, were all dismissed by the Supreme Court, rendering the divorce final.
Following the divorce, the husband sent a legal notice on August 17, 2010, asking the appellant to vacate the suit property and pay damages. Upon her refusal, he filed Suit No. 581/2014 for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the husband, granting possession and awarding damages of Rs. 3,000 per month from the date of the suit. This decree was challenged by the wife in the present appeal.
Contentions and Trial Court Findings
Before the Trial Court, the wife (appellant) contested the suit, claiming she was a co-owner of the property as it was purchased from “joint funds,” despite the sale deed being in the husband’s name. She admitted the husband had taken a loan of Rs. 1,00,000 for the Rs. 80,000 property but argued she had contributed by paying some installments and managing household expenses, enabling the husband to save.
The Trial Court framed issues including whether the plaintiff (husband) was entitled to possession and whether the defendant (wife) was a co-owner. The Trial Court found that the husband had purchased the property from his own funds, primarily out of the loan taken in his name. It held that any installments paid by the wife “may be a mutual understanding” but could not be “termed as the amount being paid as consideration.”
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court, per Justice Pushkarna, conducted a detailed analysis of the two primary issues: the wife’s claim of co-ownership and her right to residence in a “shared household.”
On Ownership:
The Court affirmed the Trial Court’s finding on ownership. It noted that the registered Sale Deed (Ex. PW-1/2) was exclusively in the husband’s name. Citing the Supreme Court in Prem Singh and Others Versus Birbal and Others (2006) 5 SCC 353, the judgment reiterated that “There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed.”
The Court also highlighted the wife’s admission during cross-examination where she stated, “It is correct that the petitioner [husband] is the owner of the property B-6 Shani Bazar,” even as she volunteered that she “gave money for the purchase of the said plot.”
Referring to a Division Bench judgment in Mania Ghai Versus Nishant Chander (2025 SCC OnLine Del 5928), the Court observed: “A legitimate and enforceable claim to the husband’s property must rest on proof of meaningful and substantive contribution. In the absence of such proof, ownership remains with the titleholder…”
On the ‘Shared Household’ Claim:
The Court addressed the appellant’s plea of having a right to reside in the property as it was a “shared household” under Section 17 of the PWDV Act. While acknowledging the expansive definition of “shared household” as laid down in Prabha Tyagi Versus Kamlesh Devi (2022) 8 SCC 90, the Court held that this right is not absolute.
The judgment relied on a Division Bench decision in Smita Jina Versus Amit Kumar Jina (2025 SCC OnLine Del 5226), which clarified that Section 17(2) of the Act permits eviction “in accordance with the procedure established by law” and “does not create a proprietary right.”
Crucially, the Court cited Kuldeep Kaur Versus Swaran Kaur Through LRs (2025 SCC OnLine Del 5593), holding that the PWDV Act’s protections are “firmly anchored in the existence of a ‘domestic relationship.'” The judgment stated:
“Once the marriage stands dissolved by a valid decree of divorce, the domestic relationship comes to an end. Consequently, the substratum upon which the right of residence is founded no longer survives, unless a contrary statutory right is shown to persist.”
Applying this precedent, Justice Pushkarna concluded: “In the present case, the divorce decree was passed vide judgment dated 21st July, 2010, which has subsequently been upheld by the Supreme Court. Thus, the parties have been divorced since the year 2010 and the domestic relationship between the parties is no longer in existence. Accordingly, the respondent-husband was within his right to seek recovery of possession of the suit property, by validly instituting the suit proceedings…”
On Damages and Mesne Profits:
The High Court, however, set aside the Trial Court’s order awarding damages to the husband. The Court took note of the husband’s own admission in his cross-examination, where he stated: “The amount of loan used to be paid from my account as well as from the account of respondent as well… She spent a little amount for paying the loan only.”
The appellant had specifically claimed to have paid three installments in 2006. The Court found there was a clear “admission on the part of the respondent that the appellant had repaid some portion of the loan amount.”
Considering this admission, the “nature of relationship between the parties,” and the fact that the wife’s initial residence was “permissive in nature,” the Court held: “the finding of the Trial Court as regards mesne profits/damages, cannot be sustained.”
Conclusion:
The High Court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the decree of possession in favour of the respondent-husband (on Issues 1 and 4) but setting aside the decree for damages and mesne profits (on Issues 2 and 3).
