Khushwant Kaur v. Gagandeep Sidhu
A woman got married in 2010 and moved into her husband’s family home soon after. Later, her in-laws claimed they had “disowned” their son and that the house belonged only to them. They wanted the woman to move out, saying she no longer had any right to stay there since her husband had been cut off from the family.
The woman refused to leave and went to court, saying the house was her matrimonial home — the place she had lived with her husband after marriage — and she had the right to stay there under the Domestic Violence Act. So, she filed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”) claiming right of residence in the “shared household
Court’s Judgement
The Delhi High Court made it clear in its Judgement Verdict on 16 Oct 2025;: a wife’s right to live in her matrimonial home does not depend on who owns the house. What matters is that she lived there with her husband after marriage.
The property qualified as a “*shared household” under Section 2(s) because the wife lived there with her husband and in-laws right after marriage. The fact that the husband later moved out or was “disowned” did not erase the shared‐household character. “The Respondent married on 14th November 2010 and, immediately thereafter, began residing at the subject premises … That residence brings the premises within Section 2(s): it is a household where she lived in a domestic relationship.”
The Court also upheld an earlier order allowing both sides to live in separate portions of the same house — the wife on one floor and the in-laws on another — until the dispute is settled properly in court.
Key Quotes from the Judgment
“The wife began living in the house right after marriage. That makes it a shared household where she has the right to reside.”
“A husband being disowned by his parents does not take away the wife’s right to stay in the shared home.”
“No woman can be forced out of her matrimonial house without following due legal process.”
What This Means for Families
This ruling protects women from being suddenly evicted after family disputes. A notice saying “you’re disowned” is not enough to make a woman homeless.
For in-laws, it means they can’t use ownership papers or disownment declarations to remove a daughter-in-law overnight. Only a proper legal process can decide who gets to stay like filing a civil suit to get an order for evacuation.
For women, it means that if you have lived in a home as your marital residence, you have a right to stay there safely — even if family relations break down.
This case is a good precedent for the proposition: residence right is not purely about property law; it intersects with domestic violence legislation.
Verified.RealEstate Insight
When buying or selling family-owned property, always check if any residence rights exist under the Domestic Violence Act. Even if ownership papers look clean, legal possession can be tricky when a daughter-in-law or wife has been living there.
Verified.RealEstate helps clients understand these hidden risks through our Legal Document Verification and Ownership Dispute Check services before making any purchase.
#Shared Household household where aggrieved person lived in a domestic relationship
#DVAct Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
#Right Of Residence right conferred under Section 17