In Smt. Harvinder Kaur v. Smt. Saranpreet Kaur & Anr. (CS SCJ No. 611613/16, pronounced 3 November 2026), the Court of Ms. Helly Fur Kaur, Civil Judge-04 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, decreed a senior-citizen mother-in-law’s suit for permanent injunction against her son and daughter-in-law in respect of her Janakpuri flat. The judgment works through the interplay between a woman’s right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act and Section 17(2), which permits eviction or exclusion in accordance with the procedure established by law — which, following Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, includes a civil suit.
The case in one view
| Case | Smt. Harvinder Kaur v. Smt. Saranpreet Kaur & Sh. Amandeep Singh Johar |
|---|---|
| Court | Ms. Helly Fur Kaur, Civil Judge-04 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi |
| Pronounced | 3 November 2026 (suit instituted in 2015) |
| Provisions | Sections 38 and 41(h), Specific Relief Act; Sections 2(s), 17 and 19, DV Act |
| Outcome | Suit decreed; permanent injunction against both defendants |
The background
The plaintiff, a senior citizen, owned a flat in Janakpuri under a registered conveyance deed of 2009. Her case was that her son and daughter-in-law, after moving out, repeatedly returned to the flat, quarrelled, demanded money and a share in the house, and threatened her; she pointed to incidents of June and July 2015, a payment of Rs 45,000 which she said was extracted under pressure, and multiple police complaints. She sued in 2015 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from visiting the flat.
The son pleaded that his father had helped purchase the flat; the daughter-in-law called it joint property. Neither led evidence. The daughter-in-law was eventually proceeded ex parte in December 2024, and the suit went to judgment a decade after institution.
Better title, and what it carried
On the documents, the court accepted the plaintiff’s ownership. In the words of the judgment, the plaintiff “can be said to be the owner of the suit property or at least have better title over the defendants.” The defendants’ competing versions remained bare pleadings without proof. The spousal-contribution argument also ran into the statutory framework governing benami claims, which the court considered alongside the evidence.
Section 17(2): exclusion through due process
The legally significant step is the court’s treatment of the DV Act. It accepted that the flat could be a “shared household” under Section 2(s), carrying a right of residence for the daughter-in-law under Section 17(1). But Section 17(2) provides that the aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Following the Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020), the court held that a civil suit before a competent court is precisely such a procedure. The suit was therefore maintainable, and on the evidence, it was decreed.
The working rule after Ahuja: the shared-household right protects against extra-legal ouster — lockouts, forced removals, strong-arm tactics. It does not immunise the occupant against a civil decree passed after trial, where her defences, and any claim to alternate accommodation in DV proceedings, can be duly weighed.
What the decision means in practice
The wider frame
Delhi’s courts see this triangle constantly: an owner (often a parent), a son, and a daughter-in-law asserting shared-household rights. Satish Chander Ahuja reset the balance in 2020 — the definition of shared household is wide, but the owner’s civil remedies survive, and the two regimes are reconciled through Section 17(2)’s due-process clause. This Tis Hazari judgment is a straightforward application at the trial-court level: title proved, incidents established, defences unproved, decree follows. The careful practitioner will also note what the decree does not decide — the daughter-in-law’s DV Act reliefs, which belong to the Magistrate’s jurisdiction and remain governed by the Act’s own scheme.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a daughter-in-law be excluded from a shared household?
Yes, but only in accordance with the procedure established by law, as Section 17(2) of the DV Act provides. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Satish Chander Ahuja, a properly constituted civil suit before a competent court is such a procedure. The residence right under Section 17 is a significant protection, but it is not an absolute bar to civil remedies by the owner of the property.
Did the court find that the flat was a shared household?
The court proceeded on the footing that the flat could answer the definition of a shared household under Section 2(s), which would give the daughter-in-law a right of residence under Section 17. The suit succeeded notwithstanding that, because the owner established her better title and Section 17(2) permits exclusion through due process.
What evidence did the owner rely on?
The plaintiff held a registered conveyance deed of 2009 in her favour. The son claimed his father had contributed to the purchase and the daughter-in-law called the flat joint property, but neither led evidence in support, and the daughter-in-law was proceeded ex parte. The court accepted the plaintiff's better title over both defendants.
Does this affect the wife's remedies under the DV Act?
A decree in a civil suit decides the civil rights put in issue in that suit. A wife who claims reliefs under the DV Act — including a residence order under Section 19 or alternate accommodation — must pursue them in DV proceedings, where the Magistrate examines them on their own statutory terms.