Right to Reside Under DV Act Not Enforceable Against Bona Fide Purchaser: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeals by Estranged Wife Seeking Protection Against Eviction

“Protection under Section 17(2) DV Act operates only against the ‘respondent’ under Section 2(q); purchaser is not a respondent. Eviction through due course of law is permissible”, Punjab and Haryana High Court clarifying the contours of a woman’s right to residence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, especially when the matrimonial property is alienated to a third party. Justice Vikram Aggarwal, while dismissing three Regular Second Appeals filed by Mrs. Chand Soni, held that a wife’s right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act does not confer an indefeasible right against a bona fide purchaser, thereby allowing her eviction in accordance with law.

In a well-reasoned and extensively detailed judgment, the Court observed: “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. If this interpretation was to be given, it will create chaos in the society.”

Shared Household Right Cannot Override Property Rights of Bona Fide Purchaser, Court Declares

The judgment arose in a matrimonial dispute wherein Mrs. Chand Soni, the legally wedded wife of Brig. R.M. Soni, claimed her continued residence in their matrimonial home at House No. 940, Sector 8, Panchkula. Despite pending marital litigation, Brig. Soni sold the house through a registered sale deed dated 24.01.2012 to a third party, Mrs. Sabina Aggarwal.

Mrs. Soni initiated proceedings for permanent injunction (RSA No. 3580 of 2013), claiming protection under Section 17, 19, and 26 of the DV Act, contending that she could not be evicted from the shared household without due process. Simultaneously, Mrs. Aggarwal filed a suit for mandatory injunction, seeking possession from Mrs. Soni, which was decreed by both lower courts. Mrs. Soni appealed, asserting the transaction was collusive and that her DV Act rights prevailed over property rights of a third party.

No Sham in Sale Transaction; Bonafide Sale Recognized

Rejecting the claim of collusion, Justice Aggarwal held that the sale deed between Brig. Soni and Mrs. Aggarwal was bona fide, negotiated openly in the presence of both spouses. The Court noted that “nothing has been brought on record to even prima facie suggest that Mrs. Aggarwal or her father were, in any manner, related to or known to Brig. Soni, which may have led to a collusive agreement to sell.”

The Court noted the sequence of events: an agreement to sell was executed in 2004, and a suit for specific performance was filed in 2009, culminating in a registered sale deed in 2012. The delay, according to the Court, “in no manner proves collusion but only underscores the legal complexities caused by the ongoing marital discord.”

Death of Husband Ends Domestic Relationship; DV Act Claim Can’t Survive Against Purchaser

One of the most significant aspects of the ruling is the Court’s interpretation of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. Since Brig. Soni passed away during the pendency of proceedings in 2019, the Court held:

“The domestic relationship, therefore, came to an end, though Mrs. Soni remained an ‘aggrieved person’. For that, she can avail her remedies against the legal representatives of Brig. Soni. Section 17 of the DV Act will not come to her aid since the suit for mandatory injunction will be taken to be an action in accordance with the procedure established by law.”

The Court also cited Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414, to hold that the protection under Section 17(2) operates only against the “respondent” within the meaning of Section 2(q) DV Act — which refers to the husband or his relatives. As Mrs. Aggarwal was a third-party purchaser, the DV Act does not shield Mrs. Soni from a civil action for eviction.

Civil Suit for Mandatory Injunction Maintainable Against Permissive Occupant

Another critical question examined by the Court was whether a civil suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable, or whether a suit for possession was necessary. Holding that Mrs. Soni had no independent legal right, title or interest in the property, the Court ruled:

“Once there was no cloud over the title of Mrs. Aggarwal and Mrs. Soni was in permissive possession, a suit for mandatory injunction was very well maintainable.”

The Court referred to the latest Supreme Court decision in Sanjay Paliwal v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., 2026 (1) RCR (Civil) 510, to affirm that where there is no dispute as to ownership and the defendant is in permissive possession, a mandatory injunction is the appropriate remedy.

No Proof of Ancestral Property; Wife Not Coparcener

The Court categorically rejected the argument that the property was ancestral or part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Justice Aggarwal emphasized:

“There is absolutely no evidence on record to even prima facie suggest that the suit property was ancestral. It was purchased by Brig. Soni from the funds received by him on account of sale of the house at Delhi which was owned by his father.”

He further held that even if the Delhi house was ancestral, the wife is not a coparcener and, therefore, cannot claim any independent right in the property under the Mitakshara law.

Mesne Profits Awarded Despite No Evidence; Reasonableness of Award Upheld

While the Trial Court had denied mesne profits, the Appellate Court awarded ₹20,000 per month from the date of institution of the suit. Mrs. Soni objected, citing lack of evidence. However, Justice Aggarwal upheld the assessment:

“It has to be borne in mind that the suit property is a 1 Kanal house in Sector-8, Panchkula. ₹20,000 per month is in fact too less, if the current rentals are seen. Nobody can be permitted to stay put in a property forcibly, that too without paying anything.”

No Substantial Question of Law; All Three Appeals Dismissed

Concluding the matter, the Court held that there was no perversity or legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of the courts below. As such, no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC, and all three second appeals were dismissed.

Justice Aggarwal also expressed disapproval over protracted oral arguments lasting days, underscoring the need for judicial time management, especially in a litigation-driven society.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision on the limits of the right to residence under the DV Act. The Court firmly reiterated that while the Act grants protection to women in domestic relationships, such rights cannot override the property rights of bona fide third-party purchasers. The ruling also reinforces that permissive possession without title cannot prevent lawful eviction, and that claims of “shared household” cannot become tools to indefinitely block transfer of property through genuine transactions.

Date of Decision: 23 January 2026