Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Failed To Prove Shared Household: Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal for Residence Right in Domestic Violence Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by an appellant-wife seeking the right of residence in a property considered as a shared household. The Court, in its judgement dated January 25, 2024, upheld the Family Court’s decision, stating that there was “no error in the Family Court’s judgement” (Para 32), thereby rejecting the appellant’s claim.

The case, Identified as MAT.APP.(F.C.) 80/2023 & CM APPL.14336/2023, involved the appellant-wife Sonia Khurana challenging the Family Court’s verdict which had dismissed her application for residence rights under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The marriage between Sonia Khurana and Pradeep Khurana was solemnized on August 29, 1999, and the dispute revolved around the residence in a property post their separation.

The High Court meticulously analyzed the definition of 'shared household' under the DV Act. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, observed, “What is ‘shared household’ has been defined in Section 2(s) of the DV Act…” (Para 24). The Court further elaborated that the appellant had not established that the disputed property was a shared household.

In regards to maintenance and child support, the High Court noted that the respondent had been paying Rs. 75,000/- per month for the maintenance and education of the children and the appellant. The Court observed, “the appellant is getting maintenance which may be able to account for her expenses for the house…” (Para 29-30).

The ruling has significant implications in cases involving claims of residence rights under the DV Act. The Delhi High Court’s decision underscores the importance of clear legal definitions and the need for concrete evidence to substantiate claims in domestic violence cases.

This judgement serves as a precedent in clarifying the application of the DV Act in residence rights disputes and highlights the Court’s approach in dealing with such complex issues.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed by the High Court, concluding that the Family Court’s decision did not warrant interference, thus setting a crucial legal precedent in cases of domestic violence and residence rights.

Date of Decision: January 25, 2024

Sonia Khurana VS Pradeep Khurana

Latest Legal News