In Mrs. Kakali Gupta (Mondol) v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (CRR 190 of 2024, pronounced 12 November 2026), Justice Uday Kumar of the Calcutta High Court dealt with a device familiar to every practitioner who handles shared-household disputes: a transfer of the property executed while the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act proceedings were pending. The Court held the pendente lite gift deed subject to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and protected the widow’s right of residence — with a direction that if equivalent accommodation is not provided, an interim accommodation charge of Rs 10,000 per month must be paid.
The case in one view
| Case | Mrs. Kakali Gupta (Mondol) v. State of West Bengal & Anr., CRR 190 of 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court at Calcutta, Justice Uday Kumar |
| Pronounced | 12 November 2026 |
| Dispute | Widow’s right of residence in the shared household against her mother-in-law; gift deed executed pendente lite |
| Key doctrines | Shared household (Section 2(s) DV Act); lis pendens (Section 52, Transfer of Property Act); estoppel |
The transfer that arrived mid-litigation
The contest was the classic one: an aggrieved widow asserting her right to reside in the shared household, and the matriarchal side of the family asserting ownership. What sharpened it was timing. While the proceedings under the DV Act were pending, a gift deed was executed in respect of the property — the kind of transfer that, if given full effect, would have left the residence claim with nothing to operate upon.
Justice Uday Kumar declined to let the deed do that work. Applying Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Court held that a transfer effected during the pendency of a proceeding in which rights to that very property are directly and specifically in question is subject to the result of that proceeding. The gift was not erased; it was subordinated. Whatever the donee received, she received it burdened with the widow’s claim. The Court also invoked estoppel against the family’s attempt to resile from the position on which the widow had lived in the premises.
The Supreme Court trilogy behind the result
The accommodation charge: residence rights with a price tag
The order’s most practical feature is its alternative structure. Section 19 of the DV Act has always contained two routes: protect the woman’s occupation of the shared household itself, or require the respondent to secure “same level” alternate accommodation or pay rent for it under Section 19(1)(f). The Calcutta High Court quantified the second route in advance — an interim accommodation charge of Rs 10,000 per month if equivalent accommodation is not provided. That converts a right that is often merely declared into one that is immediately enforceable: the family may choose which obligation to perform, but it cannot choose neither.
Drafting lessons for both sides
For the aggrieved person, two averments matter most: the facts establishing the property as a shared household within Section 2(s) — residence in a domestic relationship, not ownership — and a specific challenge, with a lis pendens plea, to any transfer executed after proceedings began. Where a transfer is apprehended rather than completed, an application under Section 19(1)(d) and (e) seeking restraint on alienation should be moved at the first hearing rather than after the deed is registered.
For respondents and transferees, the decision is a caution against treating registration as a cure. A gift or sale executed mid-proceedings does not confer possession-proof title; it acquires the litigation along with the property. The honest alternatives are to contest the shared-household characterisation on its facts, or to offer compliant alternate accommodation under Section 19(1)(f) — the one route the statute itself respects.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the shared household be transferred while a DV case is pending?
A transfer made during the pendency of proceedings in which the right to reside in that property is directly in issue takes effect subject to the result of those proceedings. That is the doctrine of lis pendens in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which the Calcutta High Court applied to a gift deed executed mid-proceedings.
Does a widow have residence rights against her in-laws?
The Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja held that a shared household is not limited to property owned by the husband — it extends to a household belonging to relatives of the husband where the aggrieved woman lived in a domestic relationship. Prabha Tyagi further holds that the right to reside subsists even without the woman being in actual occupation at the time of the application.
What if the family offers alternative accommodation instead?
Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act permits the court to direct the respondent to secure the same level of alternate accommodation or pay rent for it. In this case the Court quantified an interim accommodation charge of Rs 10,000 per month payable if equivalent accommodation was not provided.
Is a gift deed void if executed during litigation?
No — lis pendens does not make the transfer void. The transferee simply takes the property subject to the outcome of the pending proceedings, so the gift cannot be used to defeat the residence order that ultimately issues.