NEW DELHI - The hallway outside Courtroom 29 felt unusually tense on Thursday morning as Justice Mini Pushkarna took her seat and began hearing an appeal in Sangeeta vs Hitesh Kumar. What started years ago as a matrimonial dispute had finally arrived in the Delhi High Court for a decisive ruling on the possession of a modest 65-square-yard property in Uttam Nagar. The arguments were emotional at moments, but the judge kept the discussion tightly anchored to the documents and the law.
Background
The parties had married back in 2000, lived together for several years, and eventually parted ways amid growing differences. The divorce was granted in 2010 and later affirmed all the way up to the Supreme Court. Since then, Sangeeta continued to reside in the property, claiming she had contributed to its purchase and therefore could not simply be evicted.
Hitesh Kumar, on the other hand, had filed a suit in 2014 seeking possession, arguing that the house stood solely in his name and that he had repeatedly asked her to hand it back. The Trial Court had ruled in his favour, granting him possession and awarding damages at ₹3,000 per month. It was this judgment that Sangeeta challenged in the present appeal.
Court's Observations
Inside the courtroom, Justice Pushkarna listened closely as both sides revisited the circumstances surrounding the purchase. The judge frequently referred to the registered sale deed from 2005 a pivotal piece of evidence. It recorded the property solely in Hitesh Kumar’s name, and Sangeeta had never challenged its validity.
“The bench observed, ‘A registered document carries with it a presumption of correctness unless disproved. No such challenge has been made here.’”
Sangeeta argued that although the deed was in her husband’s name, she supposedly contributed to household expenses and even paid a few loan instalments during marriage, which should entitle her to some ownership. But the Court explained that occasional payments could not create ownership rights unless accompanied by clear proof of substantial contribution to purchase.
Justice Pushkarna referred to recent rulings, including Mania Ghai v. Nishant Chander, noting that domestic contributions must be meaningful and financial in nature for ownership rights to arise. The judge put it plainly:
“Helping with daily expenses or paying small instalments does not automatically turn a spouse into a co-owner.”
Another key issue was the idea of shared household. Sangeeta’s counsel insisted that since she had lived in the home as a wife, it qualified as a shared household under the Domestic Violence Act. But the judge clarified that such a right is only protective in nature and does not override ownership, nor does it create permanent rights once the marriage has been legally dissolved.
“The bench remarked, ‘After the divorce becomes final, the domestic relationship ceases. The foundation for claiming residence rights through a shared household also ends unless specific statutory protection exists.’”
Decision
After nearly two hours of arguments, Justice Pushkarna delivered a clear and balanced judgment. The Court upheld the Trial Court’s finding that Hitesh Kumar is the exclusive owner of the Uttam Nagar property. Nothing on record, the judge held, showed that Sangeeta had any legal interest in the title.
For this reason, the decree granting possession to Hitesh was affirmed.
However, the Court took a different view regarding mesne profits and damages. Justice Pushkarna noted that Sangeeta had indeed paid certain loan instalments from her account during the marriage and that her occupation of the home originally arose out of a permissible domestic arrangement, not trespass.
“The bench stated, ‘Considering the nature of the parties’ former relationship and the admitted partial loan payments, the award of mesne profits cannot be sustained.’”
With those words, the High Court set aside the Trial Court’s award of damages and mesne profits. The appeal was thus partly allowed—but only to that limited extent. The property will still have to be handed back to Hitesh Kumar, as directed earlier.
And with that, the matter quietly concluded. Counsel gathered their papers, a few whispered reactions passed between them, and the courtroom emptied just as quickly as it had filled leaving behind the sense that a long personal chapter for the parties had finally reached closure.
Case Details:- Sangeeta vs Hitesh Kumar
Case Number: RFA 589/2015
Advocates
- For Appellant: Mr. Manish Kapoor
- For Respondent: Mr. Aman Dhyani, Ms. Kanchan Semwal, Ms. Somya Gupta
Date of Judgment: 13 November 2025
