Right To Reside In Shared Matrimonial Household Does Not Bar Lawful Alienation Or Eviction In Accordance With Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The High Court held that the statutory right of an aggrieved person to reside in a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act cannot be interpreted to mean that the property can never be alienated or that eviction is barred where proceedings are taken in accordance with the procedure established by law.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the right of an aggrieved person to reside in a shared household cannot be stretched to mean that such a household can never be alienated and that such a person cannot be evicted even in accordance with the procedure established by law.
The Court was hearing a batch of regular second appeals arising from two civil suits relating to permanent and mandatory injunctions concerning a residential property, in which claims were raised on the basis of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Aggarwal, while deciding the connected appeals, observed that “the right of an aggrieved person in a shared household cannot be stretched to mean that the said household can never be alienated and that such a person cannot be evicted even in accordance with the procedure established by law.”
Senior Advocate Chetan Mittal appeared for the appellant, while Senior Advocate Amit Jain represented the respondents.
Background
The dispute concerned a residential property originally owned by the husband of the appellant. Matrimonial disputes arose between the appellant and her spouse, following which multiple legal proceedings were initiated.
The appellant instituted a suit seeking a permanent injunction, claiming the property to be her matrimonial home and a shared household, and sought restraint against alienation and dispossession. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
Subsequently, the property was transferred through a registered sale deed to a third-party purchaser. The purchaser thereafter instituted a suit for mandatory injunction seeking vacant possession of the property and mesne profits. The trial court decreed the suit for possession, and the first appellate court affirmed the decree and granted mesne profits.
The appellant challenged both streams of proceedings in regular second appeals, contending that the property was a shared household and that alienation and eviction were impermissible in view of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Court’s Observation
The High Court first examined the allegation that the sale of the property was collusive and intended to defeat the appellant’s rights. On an evaluation of the chronology of events, documentary material, and witness testimony, the Court held that no collusion was established and that the sale transaction was bona fide.
The Court noted that the agreement to sell and subsequent sale deed pre-dated many of the proceedings and that there was no material to suggest that the purchaser was related to or acting in collusion with the husband of the appellant. The Court held that the alienation was supported by consideration and could not be characterised as sham.
On the issue of shared household, the Court examined the statutory framework under Sections 2, 17 and 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Court reiterated that while the statute confers a right of residence, such right is not absolute and is subject to eviction in accordance with due process.
The Court held that the statutory embargo under Section 17(2) operates only against the “respondent” as defined under the Act, and not against third-party purchasers who are not respondents within the meaning of the statute.
The Bench further held that where eviction proceedings are initiated by a bona fide purchaser through lawful civil proceedings, such action constitutes eviction in accordance with the procedure established by law.
The Court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja and other precedents to hold that proceedings by landlords or bona fide purchasers are not barred by the Domestic Violence Act, absent collusion.
On maintainability, the Court held that where the title is clear, and possession is permissive, a suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable and need not be converted into a suit for possession.
The Court further upheld the findings on mesne profits, observing that the assessment was reasonable, having regard to the nature and location of the property.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed all the regular second appeals and upheld the decrees passed by the courts below.
The Court affirmed that the alienation of the property was bona fide, that the purchaser was entitled to seek possession through lawful proceedings, and that the right of residence in a shared household does not bar lawful eviction in accordance with due process.
The Court further upheld the grant of mesne profits and dismissed the challenge to the dismissal of the permanent injunction suit.
Cause Title: Chand Soni v. Brig R.M. Soni & Ors. & Chand Soni v. Sabina Aggarwal (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:011109)
Appearances:
Appellant: Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Shifali Goyal, Advocate
Respondents: Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with Mayank Mathur, Advocate; Anupam Mathur, Advocate; Parit Aggarwal, Advocate
