Delhi District Court
Amrit Kaur vs Manpreet Kaur on 14 October, 2025
- 1 -
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-02, WEST DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided over by Sh. Lalit Kumar, DJS)
SUIT No. 488/2017
CNR No. DLWT03-001101-2017
In The Matter Between:
Smt. Amrit Kaur,
W/o Sh. Amrik Singh,
R/o H-117, Sant Nagar Extension,
Delhi- 110018 .
..........................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Smt. Manpreet Kaur,
W/o Sh. Jaspal Singh,
D/o Sh. Sahib Singh,
R/o H-20, Sant Nagar Extension,
Gali No. 3, 1st Floor,
Tilak Nagar, Delhi-110058.
.....................DEFENDANT
Suit filed on :- 13.04.2017
Judgment Reserved on :- 19.08.2025
Date of decision :- 14.10.2025
Decision :- DISMISSED
SUIT FOR MANDATORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION,
MESNE PROFITS AND DAMAGES
Digitally
signed by
Lalit Lalit Kumar
Date:
Kumar 2025.10.15
16:56:02
+0530
Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-1/23
- 2 -
JUDGMENT
By this judgment, this Court shall adjudicate a suit for mandatory & permanent injunction, mesne profits and damages filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Before adjudicating upon the issues framed in the present suit, it is crucial to state the pleadings in the present suit concisely.
Pleadings of the plaintiff: -
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff, Smt. Amrit Kaur, for a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction, delivery of possession of the premises measuring 50 square yards and bearing No. WZ-H-20, 1st Floor, part of khasra no.9/14, situated in the area of village choukhandi, colony known as Sant Nagar Extension, Tilak Nagar, Delhi-18, (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property") and mesne profits @ Rs. 400/- per day from the date of institution of the suit until vacation by the defendant, Ms. Manpreet Kaur.
2. The plaintiff has claimed that she is the owner/landlord of the suit property. That the defendant is her daughter-in-law, married to her son, Jaspal. It is averred that she welcomed the defendant warmly into her family, treating her with love and affection. However, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant is a "greedy lady" who began mistreating the family soon after the marriage; refused to perform household duties, humiliated plaintiff and her husband; and used abusive language towards the plaintiff and her husband. It is alleged that despite the plaintiff's attempts to resolve the situation, the defendant did not change her Digitally behavior towards the plaintiff and other family members.
signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.15 16:56:08 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-2/23 +0530
- 3 -
3. It is alleged that the defendant started using abusive language and threatening to file false criminal cases against the entire family of plaintiff unless the suit property was transferred to her name. It is averred that the defendant filed several false complaints with allegations against the plaintiff, her husband and her son, and an FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC was registered.
That after lodging of FIR, the defendant allegedly pressured her husband, Jaspal (the plaintiff's son), to separate from his parents. As a result, Jaspal left his old aged parents to live separately with the defendant.
4. It is averred that despite this, out of love and affection for her son and granddaughter, the plaintiff permitted the defendant and Jaspal to reside in her property, i.e., the suit property in the year 2010. Consequently, the plaintiff herself moved out of the suit property to live in her daughter's house.
5. It is further averred that the defendant continued her coercive behaviour even thereafter as she levelled false allegations against the plaintiff, her husband and her daughter; that the defendant pressured her husband, Jaspal, to transfer the property to her name, using threats of self-harm and harming their daughter, thereby creating an unhealthy atmosphere in family.
6. It is averred that plaintiff is a senior citizen with no source of income, and her son is unable to care of her due to the defendant's influence. It is alleged that on the night of November 18-19, 2016, the defendant kicked her husband Jaspal out of the property, with intention of grabbing the suit property; that since Lalit Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar then she has not allowed her husband and the plaintiff to re-enter Date:
Kumar 2025.10.15 16:56:13 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-3/23
- 4 -
the suit property, and reiterated her threat to file false cases unless the property was transferred to her, which showed that the defendant had no love and affection towards the family of plaintiff and had her eyes on the property of the plaintiff.
7. It is averred that the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant on January 24, 2017, formally terminating her license, withdrawing her permission to reside in the suit property and requested the defendant to vacate the suit property and hand over keys to the plaintiff; and that the defendant failed to comply with this notice. It is also averred that defendant is an unauthorized occupant who has illegally taken over the property and refuses to leave, despite repeated requests. The plaintiff accuses the defendant of making life of plaintiff and her family members a "living hell" and attempting to extort money from them. Consequently, the plaintiff has filed this suit as a final legal remedy, seeking:-
i. permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant restraining her, her employees, agents, etc. from creating any third party interest in the suit property and from interfering in peaceful living and enjoyment of the plaintiff.
ii. mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to hand over the keys and possession of the suit property and to remove her belongings from there.
iii. mesne profits and damages against the defendant to the tune of Rs. 400/- per day for unauthorisingly Digitally signed by using the suit property.
Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.10.15 16:56:17 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-4/23
- 5 -
Pleadings of the Defendant: -
8. Upon service of summons of the present suit, defendant appeared and filed her Written Statement ("WS") and denied the averments of the plaintiff.
9. At the outset, defendant averred that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as it is a counterblast to legal proceedings already initiated by her against her husband and in-laws, including the plaintiff, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 , and other criminal provisions; that the Court of Ms. Annu Aggarwal, Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, has already passed a stay order dated 12.08.2016 in her favour in the DV complaint, and hence, the suit is barred and not maintainable. She further pleads that under Section 17 of the D.V. Act, being the daughter-in-law, she has a statutory right to reside in her matrimonial home/shared household, i.e., the suit property, irrespective of ownership or title.
10. The defendant further alleges that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in connivance and collusion with her (defendant's) husband Shri Jaspal Singh, and with mala fide intentions to harass, torture, and keep her away from the matrimonial house. It is further averred that the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, suppression of material facts, absence of cause of action, and improper valuation.
11. The defendant denied that the plaintiff is the owner, Digitally signed by asserting instead that her (defendant's) husband, Jaspal Singh, is Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.15 16:56:22 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-5/23
- 6 -
the actual and lawful owner of the suit property, and that she has filed the title documents in favour of her husband before the DV Court.
12. It is averred that she was married to the plaintiff's son, Jaspal Singh, on 22.01.2006 at Gurudwara Hall, Vikaspuri, New Delhi, according to Sikh rites. That, after the marriage, she was brought to her matrimonial home - the suit property - where the marriage was consummated, and a daughter, Angel Kaur, now aged about 10 years, was born from the wedlock. That her parents spent about Rs. 7-8 lakhs on the marriage and gave valuable dowry items including jewellery, furniture, utensils, appliances, and cash and despite this, she was welcomed with taunts for bringing "less dowry" and "inferior goods."
13. The defendant alleges suffering cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws, including the plaintiff. It is averred that from the very next morning of marriage, she was humiliated and insulted by her husband, the plaintiff, and other family members regarding the dowry and gifts. She alleges that her hopes as a newly-wed were shattered due to their rude and callous attitude. That her husband repeatedly demanded money from her parents for immigration to the UK, insisting on Rs.2 lakhs to process visas and for honeymoon expenses; that when her parents expressed financial difficulty, her husband and his family threw her out of the house, only to take her back when her parents managed Rs.50,000/-.
14. It is further averred that her husband was arrested at the IGI Airport on 17.02.2006 in FIR No. 91/2006 under Sections Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.15 16:56:42 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-6/23
- 7 -
420/468/471 IPC and 12 PP Act, and was sent to judicial custody; that, thereafter, he became more violent and abusive; that she was treated as a servant, made to do all household work, given inadequate food, and denied medical care. It is also averred that during her pregnancy, she was forced to consume medicines from a hakim to conceive a male child; that she fell ill after consuming the medicine, was sent to her parental home and thereafter, plaintiff prevented her from speaking with her (defendant's) husband.
15. It is averred that thereafter, a family meeting was arranged and it was decided that the defendant will stay with her husband, Jaspal Singh and from the parental side of defendant, nobody will come to her matrimonial home but they can call on telephone, then the defendant returned to her matrimonial house with the Jaspal Singh.
16. It is further averred that even during her pregnancy, she was not provided sufficient diet and medicines; that she was harassed, tortured and beaten up; that after giving birth to a girl child on 22.02.2007, she was cursed and humiliated by her in- laws, including the plaintiff. Thereafter, she was frequently beaten and expelled from her matrimonial home.
17. The defendant has stated details of multiple litigations between the parties as follows:-
i. Her husband (Jaspal) filed a divorce petition against her, Digitally ii. She lodged a police complaint before CAW Cell signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.10.15 16:56:47 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-7/23
- 8 -
upon which an FIR No. 279/2008 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC was registered at P.S. Tilak Nagar.
iii. She had also filed the complaint case U/s.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter "D.V. Act" in short).
18. It is further averred that after rejection of her husband's anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, he approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and during bail proceedings, a compromise was arrived at on 26.03.2009, and both parties (the defendant and her husband) gave statements before the Hon'ble High Court agreeing to live together at their matrimonial home. In this regard, it is averred that at that time, her husband showed her the papers of the suit property, which was then in his name, to assure her of his commitment. Trusting his assurances, she resumed cohabitation with him and their daughter at her matrimonial home/suit property.
19. It is further averred that thereafter, for some time, their marital relationship remained cordial, but soon her husband reverted to his abusive behaviour, became possessive, and addicted to drugs and alcohol. She claims he confined her at home, disallowed her to go out or use his laptop, frequently abused and assaulted her.
20. It is also averred that her husband, her sister-in-law and the plaintiff, used to reside abroad for months, leaving her and her daughter to live like "bonded slaves," deprived of basic amenities. It is averred that the plaintiff constantly instigated her son to divorce the defendant and sought Rs. 3 lakhs from her Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.15 16:56:53 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-8/23
- 9 -
brothers for purchasing a car. On her inability to pay, she was beaten by the plaintiff and her husband. It is averred that the plaintiff and her family members are desperate to dispossess the defendant and her daughter from the matrimonial house i.e., the suit property. The defendant fears that her husband plans to sell the matrimonial house and leave for abroad with his parents' support, leaving her and her daughter homeless. She asserts that she was forced to approach the Mahila Court for protection and residence rights.
21. On merits, the defendant categorically denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. She reiterated that her husband, Jaspal Singh, is the actual and lawful owner, and that the documents to that effect have been filed before the DV Court. She admits her status as daughter-in-law but denies that the plaintiff performed the marriage or bore expenses. On the contrary, she avers that her own parents spent Rs. 7-8 lakhs and provided all gifts and dowry, but the in-laws, including the plaintiff, remained dissatisfied and continuously harassed her.
22. The defendant denies all allegations that she misbehaved, fought with, or used abusive language towards the plaintiff or her husband. She maintains that she never mistreated or humiliated them; rather, it was she who was subjected to persistent cruelty, beatings, and humiliation. She further denies ever threatening to implicate her in-laws in false cases or demanding transfer of property in her favour, asserting instead that she was compelled to take legal recourse only after unbearable cruelty and threats.
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar 23. On these grounds, the defendant prays that the suit of the Kumar 2025.10.15 16:56:57 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-9/23
- 10 -
plaintiff be dismissed with costs.
Issues: -
24. Based on the pleadings, following issues were framed by the learned predecessor of this court in his order dated 16.12.2017:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mesne profits and damages as prayed for? OPP
4. Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence: -
25. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff herself appeared as sole witness as PW-1. She led her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-1/A, wherein she reiterated the averments made in the plaint. PW-1 also relied upon the site plan (Ex.PW1/1), copy of sale deed [Ex.PW-1/2 (OSR)], copy of legal notice dated 24.01.2017 (Ex.PW1/3), postal receipts (Ex.PW1/4), tracking report (Ex.PW1/6) and returned envelop (Ex.PW1/7). PW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of the defendant.
Defendant's Evidence (DE): -
26. Thereafter matter was proceeded for DE. The defendant Digitally signed by appeared herself as DW-1 and produced her brother, Palvinder Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.10.15 16:57:02 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-10/23
- 11 -
Singh as DW-2. DW-1/Defendant led her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW-1/A. DW-1 relied upon certain documents which are as under: -
Identification Mark Description
Ex.DW-1/1 (OSR) Photocopy of Aadhaar Card of
defendant.
Mark DW-1/2 Photocopy of GPA dated 04.02.2008.
Mark DW-1/3 Photocopy of order dated 26.03.2009
passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Ex. DW-1/4 (OSR) Photocopy of the order dated 12.08.2016
passed by the Ld. M.M.
Ex. DW-1/5 (OSR) Photocopy of MLC.
Ex. DW-1/6 (OSR) Photocopy of police complaint dated
14.11.2016.
Ex. DW-1/7 (OSR) Photocopy of FIR No. 279/2008.
Mark DW-1/8 Printout of Whatsapp Chat.
DW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of plaintiff.
27. Brother, Palvinder Singh appeared as DW-2. He led his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW-2/A. DW-2 was also cross-examined on behalf of plaintiff.
Decision with reasons: -
28. The final arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties. The entire record has been carefully perused. During the course of final arguments, the parties have placed reliance on their respective pleadings and evidence led on their behalf as Digitally signed Lalit by Lalit Kumar Date: Kumar 2025.10.15 16:57:14 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-11/23
- 12 -
stated herein above.
29. It is appropriate to briefly deal with the facts of the case in light of the law applicable, before giving issue-wise findings. The three issues framed in the present case are connected to each other i.e., they are arising from the alleged licensor-licensee relationship; onus to prove all the issues is on the plaintiff, therefore, all the issues shall be decided together.
30. In a gist, the case of the plaintiff is that she is the owner and landlord of suit property; she had allowed the defendant and her son Jaspal Singh (plaintiff's son and defendant's husband) to occupy out of love and affection. However, after marriage, the defendant allegedly became quarrelsome, abusive, and disrespectful toward the plaintiff and her family, filing false criminal complaints to pressurize them into transferring the suit property in her name; that the defendant expelled her husband from the suit property and has since then unlawfully retained possession of the suit property despite termination of her license by legal notice dated 24.01.2017. Essentially, the plaintiff has alleged licensor-licensee relationship between herself and the defendant, which came to be terminated through a legal notice.
31. Whereas, on the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that she has a statutory right to reside in the matrimonial/shared household, i.e., the suit property under the DV Act. The defendant has also contended that the suit property was earlier in the name of her husband; that there is collusion between the plaintiff, her son and other family members to oust her from the Lalit Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar Date:
suit property; and that the present suit is a counterblast to Kumar 2025.10.15 16:57:19 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-12/23
- 13 -
proceedings initiated by her.
32. The defendant has relied upon several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in support of her defense. Out of these judgments, three judgments lay down relevant legal propositions. These judgments are - Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja1 and S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors.2 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Ambika Jain v. Ram Prakash Sharma & Ors.3 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The other judgments relied upon by the defendant are no longer good in law since these judgments relied upon a previous ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra4, which came to be overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja5 (hereinafter "Satish Chander Ahuja case").
33. In Satish Chander Ahuja case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with Ss. 2(s)(definition of 'shared household'), 17 (Right to reside in a shared household) and 19 (Residence orders) of the DV Act has held that the DV Act was enacted to give a higher right in favour of woman; that Ss. 2(s) read with Ss. 17 and 19 grants an entitled in favour of woman of right of residence under shared household irrespective of her having any legal interest in same or not. It was further held that definition of 'shared household' given in S.2(s) cannot be read to mean that shared household can only be that household which is household 1 VII (2020) SLT 354, (2021) 1 SCC 414.
2 I (2021) SLT 1, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1023.
3 266 (2020) Delhi Law Times 18.
Digitally 4 136 (2007) DLT 1 (SC), I (2007) SLT 1.
5 supra.
signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.15 16:57:24 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-13/23
- 14 -
of joint family of which husband is a member or in which husband of aggrieved person has a share. It was further clarified 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; that, 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 S.2(s) are satisfied and the said house will become a shared household.
34. In S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors.6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again emphasised on the importance of the right to a shared household of a woman under the DV Act. It was observed that a significant object of the DV Act is to provide for and recognize rights of women to secure housing and to recognize right of a woman to reside in a matrimonial house or a shared household, whether or not she has any title or right in the shared household . The importance of DV act was highlighted and it was held that the remedies under other statutes (such as Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007) cannot be employed to defeat a woman's right to reside in a shared household and that orders obtained under other statutes by summary procedure cannot simply oust protection under the DV Act. It was emphasised that a 'shared household' would have to be interpreted to include residence where appellant had been jointly residing with her husband; and merely because ownership of property has been subsequently transferred to in-laws or that her estranged spouse is now residing Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit
6 Supra.
Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.15 16:57:28 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-14/23
- 15 -
separately, is no ground to deprive appellant of the protection that was envisaged under the DV Act.
35. In Ambika Jain v. Ram Prakash Sharma & Ors.7, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was dealing, inter alia, with the same question, i.e., where the claim of the in-laws regarding a licensor-licensee relationship with the daughter-in-law is pitched against the daughter-in-law's statutory right to residence in the shared household. The Hon'ble High Court observed that the "plea of that the daughters-in-law were merely their gratuitous licensees and, on that account, were liable to be ejected when the permission to reside in the suit premises came to be revokes, glosses over the statutory rights accruing to the daughter-in-law under the DV Act. Even if this plea of the respondents were to be accepted, this would have absolutely no bearing on the claims raised by the daughters-in-law under the DV Act". (emphasis supplied)
36. This court is aware of the proceedings instituted by the defendant u/s. 12, DV Act and pending between the parties. The defendant has expressly pleaded pendency of domestic violence proceedings and has placed reliance on the protection of Section 17, DV Act. The plaintiff also admitted in cross-examination that DV case and FIR case proceedings were initiated by the defendant and that there was a settlement/bail order of the Hon'ble High Court. An order of interim protection of the learned MM dated 12.08.2016 has been placed on record by the defendant as Ex. DW-1/4 (OSR). In this regard, this court is Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.10.15 16:57:33 +0530
7 Supra.
Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-15/23
- 16 -
guided by the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satish Chander Ahuja case, wherein it has been observed in paragraph no. 82 that: -
"in the suit filed by the appellant (father-in-law) where respondent (daughter-in-law) has pleaded and claimed that it is shared household and she has right to live and it was on that ground she was resisting the suit for mandatory injunction, the question whether the suit property is a shared household or not becomes relevant and necessary and the said issue cannot be skipped on the ground that application under DV Act is pending. In the regular suit, which has been filed by the appellant, the plea of defendant (daughter-in- law) that the suit property is her shared household and she has right to residence could have been very well gone into by virtue of Section 26." (emphasis supplied)
37. Coming to the facts of the case, it is an admitted position by the plaintiff that the defendant was welcomed by her in the suit property immediately after the marriage of her son (Jaspal Singh) with the defendant. It is also pleaded by the plaintiff herself that she allowed the defendant and her son to reside in the suit property in the year 2010, out of love and affection. From the pleadings of the defendant, it comes out that the defendant has been residing at the suit property since her marriage with the son of the plaintiff. It has been specifically pleaded by the defendant in her WS that she got married to the son of the plaintiff in the year 2006 and after the marriage, she was brought to her matrimonial home, i.e., the suit property, where the marriage was consummated. The defendant admits that on few occasions, she was ousted from the suit property by the plaintiff and her son, Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Date:
Kumar Kumar 2025.10.15 16:57:37 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-16/23
- 17 -
however, she was brought back in the suit property after a short duration on each of these occasions. These material facts were not denied or dealt with by the plaintiff by way of a replication. Thus, these facts become admitted facts (by way of direct admissions in the plaint and by way of deemed admissions of the contents of the WS), i.e. - that the suit property is the matrimonial home of the defendant since 2006; that she has been residing at the suit property as her matrimonial home and shared household since 2006, except for short durations in between; that even the plaintiff resided at the suit property along with her son and the defendant before moving out of the suit property.
38. In view of the abovementioned legal propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja Case and S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors.8 and as per the abovementioned admitted facts, it is safe to conclude that suit property is the shared household of the defendant.
39. Since it has been held that the suit property is a shared household of the defendant, it essentially follows that the defendant has a statutory right to reside in the suit property by virtue of S.17(1), DV Act. Further, the judgments in Satish Chander Ahuja case, S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors.9 and Ambika Jain v. Ram Prakash Sharma & Ors.10 support the defendant's defense that as the legally wedded wife of Jaspal Singh (son of plaintiff), she has a statutory right to reside in the matrimonial home, i.e., the suit 8 Supra.
9 Supra.
Digitally signed by 10 Supra.
Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.10.15 16:57:42 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-17/23
- 18 -
property, regardless of whether it stands in the name of her mother-in-law, the plaintiff. Consequently, any attempt by the plaintiff to evict her through a civil suit would be contrary to the statutory protection granted to women under the DV Act and aforementioned legal pronouncements.
40. The establishment of the right of defendant to reside in the shared household i.e., the suit property, entirely negates the case of licensor-licensee relationship pleaded by the plaintiff. The statutory right of the defendant runs counter to the claim of plaintiff that the defendant was merely a licensee of the plaintiff and after termination of license by the plaintiff, she does not have any right to reside in the suit property. In the present case, it has been established that the suit property constitutes defendant's matrimonial home/shared household, therefore, an act of termination of licence or a simple legal notice by the plaintiff, by itself, cannot oust the statutory protection. Therefore, the termination notice (Ex.PW1/3), even if served on the defendant, is inconsequential because of the overriding statutory right of residence in favour of the defendant.
41. Further, in the present case, the plaintiff has not made any specific allegation or provided details of any specific incident of cruelty, maltreatment, use of abusive language, threats, misbehaviour by the defendant against her or her family members. The plaint contains vague and wide allegations, without giving any specifications of any incident that took place such as - the day/date/time/year, location of alleged incident or Digitally specific words used by the defendant against the plaintiff or her signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.10.15 16:57:46 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-18/23
- 19 -
family members. Whereas, on the other hand, in her WS, the defendant has mentioned multiple specific incidents of dowry demands, harassment, mistreatment and physical assault against her; she has mentioned specific words used by the plaintiff and her son on different occasions; further, she has also levelled detailed allegations against the plaintiff and her son and supported the same with a photocopy of police complaint (Ex. DW-1/6 (OSR)) and a photocopy of FIR no. 279/2008 (Ex. DW-1/7 (OSR)).
42. The only incident mentioned by the plaintiff with date is that of the intervening night of 18.11.2016 and 19.11.2016 when the defendant allegedly kicked her husband (son of plaintiff) out of the suit property with intention of grabbing the suit property. It has been alleged that since then the defendant did not allow her husband to enter in the suit property. However, the plaintiff failed to produce her son as a witness to prove the incident that happened on the intervening night of 18.11.2016 and 19.11.2016.
Mr. Jaspal (son of the plaintiff and husband of the defendant) could have given the best evidence about the facts, circumstances and events of that night, however, the plaintiff did not examine him as a witness. In absence of testimony of the Mr. Jaspal, the allegations of the plaintiff remain merely hearsay, ergo, unproved and unreliable. It is not the case of the plaintiff that her son has abandoned his parents, or that the plaintiff and her son are not on cordial terms. In fact, in her cross examination, it was admitted by the plaintiff that her son is living with her at house no. H-117, Sant Nagar Extention, Delhi, which belongs to her daughter, Digitally signed by Sheetal. The plaintiff also admitted that her son has been residing Lalit Lalit Kumar Kumar Date:
2025.10.15 16:57:51 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-19/23
- 20 -
with her since he was allegedly ousted from the suit property by the defendant. Consequently, possibility of collusion between the plaintiff and her son cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the sole incident mentioned by the plaintiff against the defendant also remains unproved.
43. Furthermore, in her cross-examination, it was admitted by the plaintiff that she purchased the suit property through a sale deed (Ex. PW1/2 (OSR)), executed in her favour by one Ms. Avtar Kaur, who is the real sister of the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant that earlier, her husband was holding the registered GPA of the suit property dated 04.02.2008 (Ex. DW1/2(colly)), which was executed in his favour by his father (husband of plaintiff). It is alleged by the defendant that to defeat her right of residence, the husband of defendant (Mr. Jaspal Singh) sold the suit property by a registered sale deed to his real aunt/ Mausi, Ms. Avtar Kaur (sister of plaintiff) and Ms. Avtar Kaur, in turn sold the suit property to the plaintiff through another sale deed. In her cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that Ms. Avtar Kaur purchased the suit property from her son, Mr. Jaspal Singh. She also accepted that she had the chain of documents by which Ms. Avtar Kaur purchased the suit property from Mr. Jaspal Singh;
that she did not place the chain of document on the record; that she did not know the exact amount that was paid; that she had not personally paid for the purchase of suit property. The plaintiff also admitted that she is a housewife and did not file ITRs; she gave an evasive account as to the source of funds (cash from brothers living in Dubai via some relatives).
Digitally signedLalit by Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.15 16:57:55 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-20/23
- 21 -
i. Firstly, from her testimony, the plaintiff/PW1 does not inspire confidence regarding the genuineness of the sale transaction in her favour.
ii. Secondly, the registered GPA (Ex. DW1/2(colly)) in favour of defendant's husband is dated 04.02.2008 and the sale deed in favour of plaintiff is dated 25.03.2010. Further, a copy of certified copy of sale deed executed by Mr. Jaspal in favour of his aunt/Mausi, Ms. Avtar Kaur has been placed on record by the defendant. The same is, however, not exhibited by her in defendant evidence. This sale deed in favour of Ms. Avtar Kaur is of June, 2008.
However, there is no evidence on record to show that Ms. Avtar Kaur ever resided in or took possession of the suit property. The defendant has established that before and after June 2008, she was residing in the suit property along with her husband.
iii. In view of the abovementioned, the transactions related to the suit property within the family members of the plaintiff reek of collusion with an apparent objective of defeating the right of shared household of the defendant.
44. After considering the pleadings and the evidence of both sides, and in view of the above mentioned legal and factual discussion, following conclusions are reached:
i. continuous occupation by the defendant in the suit property since 2006.
ii. suit property is a shared household of the defendant and defendant has a statutory right to reside in the Lalit Digitally signed by Lalit Kumar Date:
shared household/suit property. Kumar 2025.10.15 16:58:00 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-21/23
- 22 -
iii. the plaintiff has failed to dislodge the defendant's claim that the suit property constitutes her matrimonial home and shared household within the meaning of the DV Act.
iv. there is no licensor-licensee relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.
v. there is no evidence of maltreatment, mistreatment, abusive behavior or harassment done by the defendant against the plaintiff or her family members.
vi. the defendant has led specific evidence of dowry demands, use of abusive language, humiliation, mistreatment and physical assault committed against her by the plaintiff and her son.
vii. the plaintiff and her family members colluded to oust the defendant from her shared household/suit property.
Conclusion: -
45. In view of above findings, the plaintiff's suit for mandatory and permanent injunctions and for mesne profits cannot be allowed so as to deprive the defendant of the statutory protection. Thus, the suit so far as it seeks dispossession is also liable to be dismissed because the defendant has established her defence of protection of her right to residence in the suit property under the DV Act. The claim for mesne profits is founded on the allegation of unauthorized occupation and the plaintiff has not established unlawful occupation of the defendant. Accordingly, all of the three issues are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Digitally signed by Lalit Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 2025.10.15 16:58:05 +0530 Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-22/23
- 23 -
Relief: -
46. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Cost: -
47. Considering the overall conduct of the plaintiff and the fact that the defendant has successfully defended the suit on a statutory and factual basis, the plaintiff shall pay cost of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand only) to the defendant.
48. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
49. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance.
Digitally signedLalit by Lalit Kumar Date:
Kumar 16:58:09 2025.10.15 +0530 (This judgment contains 23 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned) (LALIT KUMAR) Announced in the open Court on Civil Judge-02, West, 14.10.2025 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Suit No.488/2017 Amrit Kaur Vs. Manpreet Kaur Page-23/23