Delhi District Court
Surjiit Singh Malhotra Through Power Of ... vs Upinder Kaur Malhotra on 12 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ANUBHAV JAIN,
LD. DISTRICT JUDGE-05, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLND010052002022
CS No. 274/22
In the matter of:
SH. SURJIT SINGH MALHOTRA & ANR
S/o LATE SH. BALWANT SINGH
THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SMT. GURMEET MALHOTRA
R/o F-8/11, VASANT VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110057
(Expired on 26.01.2024)
....Plaintiff No.1
SMT. GURMEET MALHOTRA
W/o SURJIT SINGH MALHOTRA
R/o F-8/11, VASANT VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110057
....Plaintiff No.2
Versus
SMT. UPINDER KAUR MALHOTRA
W/o CAPT. TEGHJEET MALHOTRA,
R/o F-8/11, FIRST FLOOR, VASANT VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110057
....Defendant
CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 1 of 29
Date of Institution : 18.07.2022
Arguments heard on : 14.08.2025
Date of Decision : 12.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Present suit for mandatory and permanent injunction along with damages/mesne profits is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. It is stated by the plaintiffs in their plaint that they are absolute owner of property bearing no. F-8/11, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi vide registered conveyance deed dated 28.12.1999. That the defendant is daughter in law of plaintiff and she got married to son of plaintiff on 06.06.1992, as per Hindu rights and customs. It is further stated that out of the marriage between defendant and son of plaintiff, they have two issues i.e. a son and a daughter.
2.1 It is further stated that at the time of marriage, plaintiff's son was a pilot officer with Indian Airforce Station, Palam, Delhi and the defendant resided with her husband. Thereafter, plaintiff's son got posted at various other places across India while serving in Indian Airforce and the defendant lived with her husband as per his postings.
2.2 It is further alleged that in the year 2004, the plaintiff's son took voluntary retirement from Indian Airforce and joined Deccan Airlines for which he had to travel a lot and therefore he requested the CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 2 of 29 plaintiffs to permit defendant and his children to reside in the suit property and accordingly plaintiffs allowed defendant to stay in the first floor of the suit property.
2.3 It is further alleged that thereafter son of the plaintiffs got a job with Sri Lankan Airlines and therefore he was required to relocate himself at Sri Lanka, however defendant refused to accompany him or live with him in Sri Lanka. Similarly, son of the plaintiff joined services of Saudi Airlines in the year 2013 for which he had to relocate himself in Saudi Arabia, however again defendant refused to accompany him in Saudi Arabia.
2.4 It is further alleged that during the course of stay of plaintiffs' son and defendant at the first floor of the suit property, plaintiffs found that there is a marital discord between them and that their marriage could not work out properly. It was further found by the plaintiffs that the conduct of defendant towards their son was cruel and inhuman and that she never discharged her obligations as a wife or mother. Further, the defendant never mend her ways and conduct and therefore the same became totally intolerable and unbearable for the plaintiffs and therefore, they stop leaving their life peacefully.
2.5 It is further alleged that the son of the plaintiffs filed a divorce petition i.e. HMA No. 211/19 and defendant also filed a divorce petition bearing HMA No. 529/19.
CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 3 of 292.6 It is further stated that due to the matrimonial dispute between the son of the plaintiffs and defendant, the life of the plaintiffs had became a living hell and the plaintiffs who are senior citizens aged about 87 years and 81 years respectively and suffering from various old age ailments became victim of domestic violence on the part of the defendant. It is further alleged that plaintiffs are having fear that defendant would implicate them in false cases.
2.7 It is further stated that the defendant who is living all alone on the first floor of the said property was only living over there being a permissive licensee to stay on the first floor and that she has no right to reside in the suit house, plaintiffs being absolute owner of the house. That the plaintiffs issued a termination notice dated 28.12.2021 upon the defendant thereby terminating her license to reside in the said property.
2.8 By way of present suit plaintiffs has sought mandatory injunction that defendant be directed to remove herself and her belongings from the suit property. Plaintiffs have further sought permanent injunction that defendant be restrained from causing any interference or obstructions in peaceful occupation of the suit property. Plaintiffs further seeks damages/mesne profit from the defendant for use and occupation of the suit property.
CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 4 of 29WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT
3. In reply thereof, written statement was filed by the defendant, wherein defendant admitted that plaintiff no.1 is absolute owner of the suit property. She further admitted getting married to the son of plaintiffs and having two children out of the said marriage. She further admitted that both defendant as well as son of the plaintiffs had filed divorce petition.
3.1 It is stated by the defendant that she is not in exclusive possession of the property. It is stated that the area so mentioned in the plaint is in occupation of son of the plaintiffs as well as their children. It is stated that the property of the plaintiffs is a duplex house open for all the family members. It is further averred that for the sake of convenience both the plaintiffs have been staying on the ground floor while the first floor with connected second floor are in the possession of son of the plaintiffs and that the defendant is being residing there being her matrimonial home.
3.2 Defendant further denied committing any cruelty etc upon the plaintiffs or their son. It is stated that no complaint was ever made by either of the party against each other till end of 2018 when defendant came to know that her husband is engaged in adulteress activities with employee of Saudi Airlines.
CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 5 of 293.3 The Defendant further denied that she was residing in the said property in the capacity of the permissive licensee. It is stated that she was living in the said house being her matrimonial home and she being daughter in law and part of members of family.
3.4 It is further stated that the defendant was to join her husband in Sri Lanka sometime in year 2014 after getting their daughter settled in college and between 2011-13 she had been to Sri Lanka for atleast five to six times. It is further alleged that since husband of the defendant joined Saudi Airlines in 2013 and therefore there was no question to not to join him at Sri Lanka.
3.5 Defendant further denied all the allegations so leveled against her by the plaintiffs in their plaint and stated that she has taken care of her children as well as of the plaintiffs. Defendant further states that there is no cause of action in favor of plaintiff to file the present suit against her and prayed that suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed.
REPLICATION
4. In reply to the written statement, so filed by the defendant, replication was filed by the plaintiff, wherein plaintiffs denied the averments so made by defendant in her written statement and reiterated those so made by them in their plaint.
CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 6 of 29APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXII RULE 2 CPC
5. It is pertinent to state in here that during the pendency of this suit, plaintiff no.1 namely Surjit Singh Malhotra was informed to be expired on 26.01.2024. Further, it was apprised that by virtue of Will dated 09.12.2018 he bequeath all the immovable properties in name of his wife i.e. plaintiff no.2. An application under Order XXII Rule 2 CPC was filed in this regard on behalf of plaintiff seeking to pursue the suit by defendant no.2. The said application was allowed by Ld Predecessor Court vide order dated 17.08.2024.
ISSUES
6. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by Ld Predecessor Court on 14.07.2023;
1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD
2) Whether the suit property is the share household of the defendant? OPD
3) If the issue no.1 is decided in favor of defendant, whether she cannot be removed from the suit property? OPD
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction to remove defendant from the suit property, as prayed for? OPP
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 7 of 29
6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages and mesne profits, if so, at what rate and for what period?
OPP
7) Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
7. That, thereafter the matter was listed for PE and the plaintiff Ms. Gurmeet Kaur Malhotra filed her affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of GPA Ex.PW1/1.
2. Copies of Aadhar Card of herself and plaintiff no.1 Ex.PW1/2 and Ex. PW-1/3.
3. Copy of Conveyance Deed Ex. PW-1/4.
4. Site plan Ex.PW1/5.
5. Medical documents of plaintiff no. 1 and herself Ex.PW1/6.
6. Legal notice dated 28.12.2021 along with postal receipt and reply Ex.PW1/7, Ex. PW-1/7A and Ex. PW-1/8.
7. Copy of the order and certified copy along with plaint Ex.
PW-1/9.
Thereafter PW-1 Ms. Gurmeet Kaur Malhotra was duly cross examined by the defence counsel on 19.10.2023, 22.11.2023, 06.12.2023 in the presence of Ld. Local Commissioner.
8. Plaintiff further during the course of their evidence has filed affidavit of PW-2 Mr. Bhavkaran Singh Malhotra Ex. PW-2/A and CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 8 of 29 the said witness was duly cross examined by the defence counsel in the presence of Ld. Local Commissioner.
9. That thereafter, plaintiff evidence was closed vide order dated and the matter was listed for defence evidence.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
10. Defendant Ms. Upinder Kaur Malhotra has filed her affidavit in evidence Ex. DW-1/A. Defendant was duly cross examined by the plaintiff counsel on 14.05.2025, 03.06.2025 and 11.07.2025.
Defendant further states that she does not wish to file any further evidence and DE was closed on 11.07.2025 and further matter was listed for final arguments.
11. I have heard arguments so led by the parties and perused the case file carefully. My issue wise findings are as follows:
ISSUE NO. 1: WHETHER THE SUIT IS BARRED BY LAW OF LIMITATION? OPD
12. Burden to prove the present issue lies upon the defendant.
13. The present suit is filed for mandatory and permanent injunction by plaintiffs against the defendant alleging that plaintiffs are in-laws of defendant herein and are owner of the property bearing CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 9 of 29 no. F-8/11, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. It is alleged that defendant got married to their son and was allowed to use the premises of the plaintiffs as the permissive licensee to stay on the first floor of the property. It is further alleged that due to marital discord between the son of plaintiffs and the defendant and due to act and conduct of the defendant, the plaintiffs does not wish to permit the defendant to reside in their property and thereby defendant be directed to remove herself from the property of the plaintiffs by issuing terminating notice dated 28.12.2021.
14. It was argued by Ld counsel for the defendant that admittedly as per the plaint itself the dispute between the son of the plaintiffs and defendant had started prior to year 2019 and the present suit is filed in June, 2022 and thereby the present suit is barred by law of limitation.
15. Present suit for mandatory and permanent injunction is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant alleging cruelty. It is admitted by the defendant that plaintiffs here in are owner of property in question. It is further admitted that defendant is daughter in law of plaintiffs and further she is residing in the suit property. Further, as per the plaintiffs, they have terminated the license of defendant to reside in the suit property on 28.12.2021 and present suit is filed on 09.06.2022.
16. It is not the defense of the defendant that she had perfected the title over the suit property by way of adverse possession.Further, Ld CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 10 of 29 counsel for defendant did not specify as to under what provision or article of limitation Act the present suit is barred. Furthermore, cause of action in the present suit is of continuous nature. In view of the same, this court finds no merits in the arguments that the present suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation.
In view of the same, the present issue is decided against the defendant and in favor of plaintiffs.
ISSUE NOS. 2, 3, 4 and 5:
2.WHETHER THE SUIT PROPERTY IS THE SHARE HOUSEHOLD OF THE DEFENDANT? OPD
3.IF THE ISSUE NO. 1 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF DEFENDANT, WHETHER SHE CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM THE SUIT PROPERTY? OPD
4. WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO A DECREE OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION TO REMOVE DEFENDANT FROM THE SUIT PROPERTY, AS PRAYED FOR? OPP
5. WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO A DECREE OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION, AS PRAYED FOR? OPP
17. Since all the above said issues required common discussion as to law and facts, all the above said issues are dealt with together.
CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 11 of 29Further, burden to prove issue no. 2 and 3 lies upon the defendant while that of issue no. 4 and 5 lies upon the plaintiffs.
FACTS ADMITTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES
18. In order to narrow down the controversy, the fact admitted between the parties is stated as under:
a) That plaintiffs are owner of property in question;
b) That defendant got married to son of plaintiffs namely Teghjeet Malhotra in 1992;
c) That the son of plaintiffs filed a divorce petition against the defendant bearing HMA no. 211/19, while the defendant also filed a divorce petition against the son of plaintiffs bearing HMA no. 529/19;
d) That vide order dated 05.08.2022, Ld Judge, Family Court has directed the son of the plaintiffs to pay interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- p.m. to the defendant;
e) That Ld Judge, Family Court, PHC vide order dated 18.07.2024 dissolved the marriage between son of plaintiffs and defendant.
19. Further both the counsels during the course of arguments admitted to the fact that the defendant herein has challenged the order dated 18.07.2024 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein notice were issued, however no stay was granted.CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 12 of 29
SHARE HOUSEHOLD
20. In the present matter, although it is alleged by the defendant that she was residing in the suit property being share household, it was alleged by the plaintiff that she was residing in their being permissible licensee and license was terminated on 28.12.2021 upon issuance of notice upon her.
21. It is pertinent to state in here that it was contended by the plaintiffs in their plaint that since their son was a pilot officer and used to posted at various places across India, the defendant lived with their son wherever he was posted. It is further stated that in the year 2004 the plaintiffs son took voluntarily retirement from Indian Air force and join Deccan Airlines and at that time he requested the plaintiffs to permit the defendant and his children to reside in the said property upon which plaintiffs allowed defendant to stay on the first floor of the property. It is further stated that thereafter the son of the plaintiffs joined Sri Lankan Airlines and Saudi Airlines, however defendant refused to relocate herself with the son of plaintiffs.
22. Further during the course of cross examination, it was admitted by the plaintiff Gurmeet Kaur that the defendant herein stayed in the suit premises for last 25 years. Relevant portion of the cross examination of the plaintiff is being reproduced here under:
CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 13 of 29Q No.69 : Have you made any arrangements for your daughter-in-law to stay once you remove her from your house?
Ans: She does not need any help from us since she already has a house in Dwarka, Sector-10, Flat No. 408 in Mass CGHS which is in the name of her father. For the last 25 years she has been staying in my house. Now she can stay in her father's house for the next 25 years which has been lying vacant for last 15 years.
23. Further, it was admitted by the plaintiff that during her son visit to Delhi or after her son has left the job, he was residing in the suit property along with her. Relevant portion of the cross examination of the plaintiff is being reproduced as under:
Q 18 Would it be correct to say that you do not permit your son to visit your house?
Ans: He can pay me occasional visits and there is no problem, whenever he is in Delhi. He visits us whenever he is in Delhi.
Q 19 Where does your son stay when he comes to Delhi? Does he stay in the property bearing No. F-9/11, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi?
Ans: He does not stay with me in my house. He is a Pilot and he stays wherever the Airlines gives him the accommodation to stay but he comes to meet us and the children and spends time with them.
Q: 20 In case your son comes and stays for one night in any portion of property bearing no. F-8/11, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, will you not allow that?
Ans He cannot come and stay with me because I do not have enough space on the ground floor but he is welcome to spend night with his children on the Second Floor and that is matter between them and I am not a party thereto.
Q No. 21 Did you refuse permission to your aforesaid married grandson and his wife to say/live in property bearing no. F-8/11, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi? Ans: I have not refused them to stay in property bearing no. F-8/11, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi since they are newly married and yet to settle down. They have been permitted CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 14 of 29 to stay in the property bearing no. F-8/11, Vasant Vihar, New Delhli. But it is still temporary arrangement. In the same way as I had helped my son when he left his job and he was without a house and we permitted him to stay.
24. As such, it is admitted case of the plaintiffs that defendant was their daughter in law and was residing in the suit property along with them after her marriage or whenever the son of the plaintiff used to visit Delhi along with family. In such circumstances, the question which requires determination is whether the suit property can be considered as a "share household" of the defendant.
25. In this regard, this court deems it appropriate to reproduce in here relevant provision of law under Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with regards to principle of share household
(s) "shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a house hold whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household;
(a) "aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;
(f) "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 15 of 29 a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;
(q) "respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:
Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner;
( The words "adult male" was struck down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Hiral P. Harsora and Ors. Vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors., (2016) 10 SCC 165.)
3. Definition of domestic violence.--For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it-- (a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse;
or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
Explanation I.--For the purposes of this section,--
(i) "physical abuse" means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;
(ii) "sexual abuse" includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;
(iii) "verbal and emotional abuse" includes--
CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 16 of 29(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and
(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested;
(iv) "economic abuse" includes--
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, house hold necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared house hold and maintenance;
(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.
Explanation II.--For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes "domestic violence" under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.
26. Further Hon'ble Apex Court in Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja Air Online 2020 SC 784, elaborately explains the terms Share household. Relevant portion of the judgment is being reproduced as under:
CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 17 of 2955. Now, reverting back to the definition of Section 2(s), the definition can be divided in two parts, first, which follows the word "means" and second which follows the word "includes".
The second part which follows "includes" can be further sub- divided in two parts. The first part reads "shared household means a household where the person aggrieved has lived or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent". Thus, first condition to be fulfilled for a shared household is that person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship. The second part sub-divided in two parts is-
(a) includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent and owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and
(b)includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. In the above definition, two expressions, namely, "aggrieved person" and "respondent" have occurred. From the above definition, following is clear:- (i) it is not requirement of law that aggrieved person may either own the premises jointly or singly or by tenanting it jointly or singly; (ii) the household may belong to a joint family of which the respondent is a member irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household; and (iii) the shared household may either be owned or tenanted by the respondent singly or jointly.
62. The observation of this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 were made while considering the expression "person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived". This Court observed in paragraph 26 that if the interpretation canvassed by learned counsel for the respondent is accepted that the house of the husband's relative where respondent resided shall become shared household, shall lead to chaos and would be absurd. The expression "at any stage has lived" occurs in Section 2(s) after the words "where the person aggrieved lives". The use of the expression CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 18 of 29 "at any stage has lived" immediately after words "person aggrieved lives" has been used for object different to what has been apprehended by this Court in paragraph 26. The expression "at any stage has lived" has been used to protect the women from denying the benefit of right to live in a shared household on the ground that on the date when application is filed, she was excluded from possession of the house or temporarily absent. The use of the expression "at any stage has lived" is for the above purpose and not with the object that wherever the aggrieved person has lived with the relatives of husband, all such houses shall become shared household, which is not the legislative intent. The shared household is contemplated to be the household, which is a dwelling place of aggrieved person in present time. When we look into the different kinds of orders or reliefs, which can be granted on an application filed by aggrieved person, all orders contemplate providing protection to the women in reference to the premises in which aggrieved person is or was in possession. Our above conclusion is further fortified by statutory scheme as delineated by Section 19 of the Act, 2005. In event, the definition of shared household as occurring in Section 2(s) is read to mean that all houses where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship alongwith the relatives of the husband shall become shared household, there will be number of shared household, which was never contemplated by the legislative scheme. The entire Scheme of the Act is to provide immediate relief to the aggrieved person with respect to the shared household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived. As observed above, the use of the expression "at any stage has lived" was only with intent of not denying the protection to aggrieved person merely on the ground that aggrieved person is not living as on the date of the application or as on the date when Magistrate concerned passes an order under Section 19. The apprehension expressed by this Court in paragraph 26 in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra), thus, was not true apprehension and it is correct that in event such interpretation is accepted, it will lead to chaos and that was never the legislative intent. We, thus, are of the considered opinion that shared household referred to in Section 2(s) is the shared household of aggrieved person where she was living at the time when application was filed or in the recent past had been excluded from the use or she is temporarily absent.
CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 19 of 2963. The words "lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship" have to be given its normal and purposeful meaning. The living of woman in a household has to refer to a living which has some permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared household. The intention of the parties and the nature of living including the nature of household have to be looked into to find out as to whether the parties intended to treat the premises as shared household or not. As noted above, Act 2005 was enacted to give a higher right in favour of woman. The Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the woman who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. The Act has to be interpreted in a manner to effectuate the very purpose and object of the Act. Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of Act, 2005 grants an entitlement in favour of the woman of the right of residence under the shared household irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same or not.
64. In paragraph 29 of the judgment, this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) held that wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household and a shared household would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The definition of shared household as noticed in Section 2(s) does not indicate that a shared household shall be one which belongs to or taken on rent by the husband. We have noticed the definition of "respondent" under the Act. The respondent in a proceeding under Domestic Violence Act can be any relative of the husband. In event, the shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are satisfied and the said house will become a shared household. We are of the view that this court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) although noticed the definition of shared household as given in Section 2(s) but did not advert to different parts of the definition which makes it clear that for a shared household there is no such requirement that the house may be owned singly or jointly by the husband or taken on rent by the husband. The observation of this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) that definition of shared household in Section 2(s) is not very happily worded and it has to be interpreted, which is sensible and does not lead to chaos in the society also does not commend us. The definition of shared CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 20 of 29 household is clear and exhaustive definition as observed by us. The object and purpose of the Act was to grant a right to aggrieved person, a woman of residence in shared household. The interpretation which is put by this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) if accepted shall clearly frustrate the object and purpose of the Act. We, thus, are of the opinion that the interpretation of definition of shared household as put by this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) is not correct interpretation and the said judgment does not lay down the correct law.
27. It is pertinent to state in here that in the entire written statement so filed by the defendant, she has no where stated that she was subjected to any domestic violence by the plaintiff or her husband at any point of time during the marriage.
28. As such, in absence of any plea with regard to being subjected to domestic violence, the question which requires consideration is, whether the defendant can be considered as aggrieved person, in absence of any domestic violence upon her, and can claim her right of residence in the suit property as a share household property?
29. In this regard, Hon'ble Apex court in Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi, Crl. Appeal No. 511/2022, dated 12.05.2022 has observed as follows:
29. As already noted, a domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time, lived together in a shared household. The relationship may be by (i) consanguinity, (ii) marriage or, (iii) through a relationship in the nature of a marriage, (iv) adoption or (v) are family members living together as a joint family. The expression 'domestic relationship' is a comprehensive one.
Hence, every woman in a domestic relationship in whatever CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 21 of 29 manner the said relationship may be founded as stated above has a right to reside in a shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. Thus, a daughter, sister, wife, mother, grand-mother or great grand- mother, daughter-in-law, mother- in-law or any woman having a relationship in the nature of marriage, an adopted daughter or any member of joint family has the right to reside in a shared household.
30. Further, though, the expression 'shared household' is defined in the context of a household where the person aggrieved lives or has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with respondent, in the context of Sub-Section (1) of Section17, the said expression cannot be restricted only to a household where a person aggrieved resides or at any stage, resided in a domestic relationship. In other words, a woman in a domestic relationship who is not aggrieved, in the sense that who has not been subjected to an act of domestic violence by the respondent, has a right to reside in a shared household. Thus, a mother, daughter, sister, wife, mother-in- law and daughter-in-law or such other categories of women in a domestic relationship have the right to reside in a shared household de hors a right, title or beneficial interest in the same.
Therefore, the right of residence of the aforesaid categories of women and such other categories of women in a domestic relationship is guaranteed under Sub-Section (1) of Section 17 and she cannot be evicted, excluded or thrown out from such a household even in the absence of there being any form of domestic violence. By contrast, Sub-Section (2) of section 17 deals with a narrower right in as much as an aggrieved person who is inevitably a woman and who is subjected to domestic violence shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Thus, the expression 'right to reside in a shared household' has to be given an expansive interpretation, in respect of the aforesaid categories of women including a mother-in-law of a daughter-in-law and other categories of women referred to above who have the right to reside in a shared household.
31. Further, the expression 'the right to reside in a shared household' cannot be restricted to actual residence. In other words, even in the absence of actual residence in the shared CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 22 of 29 household, a woman in a domestic relationship can enforce her right to reside therein. The aforesaid interpretation can be explained by way of an illustration. If a woman gets married then she acquires the right to reside in the household of her husband which then becomes a shared household within the meaning of the D.V. Act. In India, it is a societal norm for a woman, on her marriage to reside with her husband, unless due to professional, occupational or job commitments, or for other genuine reasons, the husband and wife decide to reside at different locations. Even in a case where the woman in a domestic relationship is residing elsewhere on account of a reasonable cause, she has the right to reside in a shared household. Also a woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship has the right to reside not only in the house of her husband, if it is located in another place which is also a shared household but also in the shared household which may be in a different location in which the family of her husband resides.
32. If a woman in a domestic relationship seeks to enforce her right to reside in a shared household, irrespective of whether she has resided therein at all or not, then the said right can be enforced under Sub-Section (1) of Section 17 of the D.V. Act. If her right to reside in a shared household is resisted or restrained by the respondent(s) then she becomes an aggrieved person and she cannot be evicted, if she has already been living in the shared household or excluded from the same or any part of it if she is not actually residing therein. In other words, the expression 'right to reside in the shared household' is not restricted to only actual residence, as, irrespective of actual residence, a woman in a domestic relationship can enforce her right to reside in the shared household. Thus, a woman cannot be excluded from the shared household even if she has not actually resided therein that is why the expression 'shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household' has been intentionally used in Sub-Section (2) of Section 17. This means if a woman in a domestic relationship is an aggrieved person and she is actually residing in the shared household, she cannot be evicted except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Similarly, a woman in a domestic relationship who is an aggrieved person cannot be excluded from her right to reside in the shared household except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Therefore, the expression 'right to reside in the shared household' would include not only actual residence but also constructive residence in the shared household i.e., right to reside therein CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 23 of 29 which cannot be excluded vis-à-vis an aggrieved person except in accordance with the procedure established by law. If a woman is sought to be evicted or excluded from the shared household she would be an aggrieved person in which event Sub-Section (2) of Section 17 would apply.
30. Since, admittedly the defendant was residing in the suit property after her marriage, being daughter in law of the plaintiff and further that she was residing in there from last 25 years, in light of law discussed above the suit property was a share household of defendant and it is not required for defendant to show or prove that she was subject to domestic violence while living in there.
31. In view of the same, issue no. 2 is decided in favor of defendant and against the plaintiffs.
32. Once, it is determined that the suit property is a share household, the other question which requires determination is whether the plaintiffs can seek direction for the defendant to vacate the said property.
33. In this regard, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vinay Varma vs Kanika Pasricha & Anr. on 29 November, 2019AIR 2020 (NOC) 512 (DEL.) has laid down guidelines while balancing the right of daughter in law under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and that of in-laws under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the judgments is being reproduced as under:
CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 24 of 2946. However, later decisions of various High Courts have, while giving divergent opinions on the concept of `shared household‟, followed one uniform pattern in order to protect the daughter-in-law and to provide for a dignified roof/ shelter for her. The question then arises as to whether the obligation of providing the shelter or roof is upon the in-laws or upon the husband of the daughter-in-law i.e., the son. Some broad guidelines as set out below, can be followed by Courts in order to strike a balance between the PSC Act and the DV Act:
1. The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the son‟s/ daughter ‟s family.
2. If the case involves eviction of a daughter in law, the court has to also ascertain whether the daughter-in-law was living as part of a joint family.
3. If the relationship is acrimonious, then the parents ought to be permitted to seek eviction of the son/daughter-in-law or daughter/son-in-law from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife would continue in terms of the principles under the DV Act.
4. If the relationship between the parents and the son are peaceful or if the parents are seen colluding with their son, then, an obligation to maintain and to provide for the shelter for the daughter-in-law would remain both upon the in-laws and the husband especially if they were living as part of a joint family. In such a situation, while parents would be entitled to seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from their property, an alternative reasonable accommodation would have to be provided to her.
5. In case the son or his family is ill-treating the parents then the parents would be entitled to seek unconditional eviction from their property so that they can live a peaceful life and also put the property to use for their generating income and for their own expenses for daily living.
6. If the son has abandoned both the parents and his own wife/children, then if the son‟s family was living as part of a joint family prior to the breakdown of relationships, the parents would be entitled to seek possession from their CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 25 of 29 daughter-in-law, however, for a reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the daughter-in-law during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband.
34. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja AIR ONLINE 2020 SC 784, has observed as follows:
83. Before we close our discussion on Section 2(s), we need to observe that the right to residence under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-
in-law. While granting relief both in application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 or in any civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties. The directions issued by High court in paragraph 56 adequately balances the rights of both the parties.
35. At this stage, it is further pertinent to reiterate in here that the defendant herein is already in receipt of interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- from the son of the plaintiff vide order dated 05.08.2022. Further, vide said order Ld Judge Family Court has also granted liberty to the defendant to approach court for enhancement of interim maintenance in case rental accommodation is required. As such, the right of defendant is already preserved by Ld. Judge, Family Court.
36. Admittedly, the plaintiff is owner of the suit property and defendant was residing there being daughter in law. Furthermore, there is a marital discord between the son of the plaintiff and defendant (wife) and in pursuance to the same both the parties have filed divorce petition against each other and the divorce decree was CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 26 of 29 granted by Ld. Judge Family court which was challenged by the defendant herein before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and same is informed to be pending. Further as per the averment made by the plaintiff in her plaint, she was under lot of physical and mental stress due to said marital discord. Further as discussed above, the defendant herein is already receiving interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month from the defendant and her right of further enhancement of the same, in case of her eviction from suit property, is duly preserved by Ld. Judge Family Court vide order dated 05.08.2022.
37. In view of the law and facts discussed above, this court is of the view that the plaintiff herein being a senior citizen is entitled to live peacefully and not be haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law.
In view of the same, the plaintiff herein is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction and defendant is hereby directed to vacated the suit premises within three months of passing the order.
38. In view of the discussion made above, issue no. 3 and 4 are decided in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant.
39. Plaintiffs by way of present suit has also sought relief of permanent injunction that defendant be restrained from creating an interference or obstruction of the right of plaintiff in the suit property. In light of the discussion made above, since the plaintiff is the owner of the property in question and further, defendant is directed to vacate CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 27 of 29 the suit property, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction so sought.
In view of the same, defendant is hereby restrained from creating any interference into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.
As such, issue no. 5 is decided in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant.
40. In view of the discussion made above, issue no.2 is decided in favor of defendant while issue no. 3, 4 and 5 are decided in favor of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 6: WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER DAMAGES AND MESNE PROFITS, IF SO, AT WHAT RATE AND FOR WHAT PERIOD? OPP
41. Plaintiff by way of present suit has further sought damages of the mesne profit from the defendant from the date of filing of the suit till actual possession of the property handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff. Burden to prove the present issue lies upon the plaintiff.
42. The plaintiff has not placed on record even an iota of evidence, either oral or documentary, to show the current rate of rent in the nearby premises. Be that as it may, since it is held by this court in issue no.2 that the defendant was residing in the suit property as a share household and not being a permissive licensee, it cannot be said CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 28 of 29 that the plaintiff is entitled for any damages or mesne profit from the defendant, for residing in the suit premises.
In view of the same, the above said issue is decided in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
43. In view of the discussion made above, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed. Defendant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within 3 months of passing the judgment. The defendant is further restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Further plaintiff is not entitled any mesne profit or damages from the defendant. Suit disposed off accordingly.
44. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV
JAIN
Announced in the open Court JAIN Date: 2025.09.12
04:25:23 +0530
on 12th of September, 2025 (Anubhav Jain)
District Judge -05, NDD,
PHC/ND/12.09.2025
Note: This judgment contains 29 pages and each page has been signed by me.
CS 274/22 Surjit Singh Malhotra Through Power of Attorney Vs. Upinder Kaur Malhotra Page 29 of 29