The Delhi High Court, in a detailed judgment delivered by Justice Sanjeev Narula on October 16, 2025, dismissed two revision petitions filed by Khushwant Kaur - mother-in-law of Gagandeep Sidhu - in a long-running domestic dispute. The Court upheld concurrent findings of the Mahila Court and the Sessions Court, affirming that Sidhu has a statutory right to reside in her matrimonial home at Old Gobindpura Extension, Delhi, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
Background
Gagandeep Sidhu married Saravjeet Singh, the son of the petitioners, on November 14, 2010. The couple began living with Singh's parents at their Delhi residence. But within a year, tensions surfaced. Kaur and her late husband, Daljit Singh, claimed that their son and daughter-in-law had moved out voluntarily to a rented accommodation in November 2011 and that they had publicly "disowned" their son through a newspaper notice. Sidhu, however, maintained that she was forcibly removed from her matrimonial home and that her in-laws attempted to take away her belongings.
The dispute soon escalated into multiple litigations. Sidhu filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, seeking protection and the right to residence. Conversely, Khushwant Kaur filed her own complaint under the same Act, alleging harassment by Sidhu and seeking compensation.
Both cases were decided by the Mahila Court in 2020 - Sidhu's complaint was allowed in part, granting her protection from dispossession, while Kaur's complaint was dismissed. Appeals against these orders were rejected by the Sessions Court in 2021, leading to the present revision petitions before the High Court.
Court's Observations
Justice Narula noted that the key issue was whether Sidhu's residence at the Old Gobindpura property could be considered a "shared household" under Section 2(s) of the DV Act.
Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021), the Court clarified that ownership of the house is immaterial - a wife's right to live in the matrimonial home exists even if the property is owned solely by the in-laws.
"The Court cannot look narrowly at title deeds while deciding a woman’s right to residence," Justice Narula remarked. "If she has lived in the property with her husband during marriage, that property becomes a shared household."
Rejecting the petitioner's contention that their "disownment notice" deprived Sidhu of any rights, the Court called such notices "contrived" and "legally ineffective." It also observed that under Section 17(2) of the DV Act, no woman can be evicted from the shared household except through due process of law.
On the claim that Sidhu was no longer living in the premises - supported by low electricity consumption data - the Court said such evidence was "speculative" and insufficient. "Low power use cannot become proof of non-occupation," Justice Narula stated, adding that revisional courts cannot entertain fresh evidence to challenge concurrent factual findings.
Balancing the Rights of Both Sides
Acknowledging the death of Daljit Singh during the proceedings, the Court emphasised the need to balance the rights of both parties. It observed that Sidhu currently occupies the ground floor while Kaur resides on the first floor of the same house - an arrangement that "already achieves the balance the law aims for."
"So long as both sides respect the boundaries recognised by the courts below, coexistence in separate portions ensures that neither protection nor ownership is rendered illusory," the bench noted.
The Court dismissed the plea that Sidhu should be provided alternative accommodation instead of continuing to live in the property, observing that the Magistrate's order - which merely restrained dispossession without adjudicating ownership - was lawful and proportionate.
Read also:- J&K High Court Grants Interim Relief to Kashmir Times in Land Cancellation Case
Decision
Concluding that there was "no illegality or perversity" in the lower courts findings, the High Court dismissed both revision petitions.
"The premises qualify as a shared household within Section 2(s) the Respondent's right of residence under Section 17 stands attracted; and the residence orders under Section 19 are well within jurisdiction," the judgment stated.
Justice Narula clarified that questions regarding ownership or mesne profits remain pending before the civil courts and the Supreme Court and were not adjudicated in this case.
The ruling effectively maintains the existing arrangement - the mother-in-law on the first floor and the daughter-in-law on the ground floor - until due process determines otherwise.
Title: Khushwant Kaur vs. Smt. Gagandeep Sidhu and other connected matters
Counsel Appearances
For Respondent: Ms. Samvedna Verma, Advocate.
For Petitioners: Mrs. Kajal Chandra and Ms. Hatneimawi, Advocates.
