Read Time: 10 minutes
“It is evident that no absolute right of residence can be claimed by the petitioner (daughter-in-law). She herself is an educated woman who has done her MBA and is employed with Accenture Solutions Private Limited. It is not a case where she is helpless or there is any endeavour to leave her on the road by taking away the roof from her head”, the court emphasized.
The Delhi High Court, through an order dated October 21, held that the right of a daughter-in-law to continue to live in the shared household is not an absolute right. The court made such observations in a petition filed by the daughter-in-law against the order of the Appellate Court, revoking the interim protection against eviction, and the interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “Right of a daughter-in-law to continue to live in the shared household, is subject to two conditions; firstly she cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law and secondly, she may be provided with an alternate accommodation or the rent for such alternate accommodation”.
The couple entered into matrimony on 12th July 2016, subsequently residing in a property situated in Delhi, which was under the ownership of the wife's father-in-law. Soon after the marriage, disputes emerged, leading the parents-in-law and sister-in-law to relocate to a separate property within the same neighborhood.
On 19th July 2017, the husband also vacated the shared residence, informing his wife of his decision not to return. Efforts to mediate the disputes proved futile, prompting the wife to lodge a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging cruelty and maltreatment by her husband and his family.
During the legal proceedings, the daughter-in-law sought protective measures to ensure her continued residence in the shared household and successfully obtained a restraining order preventing her husband’s family from evicting her. Additionally, the husband was directed to provide interim maintenance payments amounting to Rs. 5,000 per month.
Subsequently, the parents-in-law initiated a civil suit seeking the daughter-in-law’s eviction from the disputed property, thereby challenging her right to remain in the shared household. An application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for a judgment based on admissions was dismissed by the Civil Judge on 29th July 2019.
Concurrently, the father-in-law filed an application requesting the vacation of the interim order dated 21st December 2017. The daughter-in-law contended that such an application was legally impermissible. Nonetheless, the Magistrate issued a contested order on 21st December 2019, revoking both the interim protection against eviction and the interim maintenance provision of Rs. 5,000.
Aggrieved by the order of 21st December 2019, the wife filed an appeal before the District & Sessions Judge. After evaluating all presented arguments, the appeal was dismissed on 20th August 2020.
The court observed that the central issue concerned the shared household, where the permissive possession initially granted by the Magistrate was vacated by the order dated 21st December 2019, a decision subsequently upheld by the Sessions Judge on 20th August 2020.
The court clarified that under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act, the Magistrate possessed the authority to issue a residence order upon satisfaction that domestic violence had indeed occurred. Such an order could include directives restraining the respondent from dispossessing the aggrieved person from the shared household or mandating the arrangement of alternative accommodation or payment of rent.
The court noted that Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act defines a "shared household" as a residence occupied by a woman after marriage, irrespective of ownership.
The court observed, "Undeniably, she came to reside in this house along with all the family members after her marriage and thus, it is her shared household. Even though admittedly the property is owned by respondent No.3 the father-in-law, that still does not take away the status of the suit property from being the shared household". The legal question arose regarding whether she held an absolute right to reside there, the court noted.
In referring to the case of Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (SLP No.1048/2020), the court reiterated the entitlement of elderly parents-in-law to live without the disruption caused by marital disputes.
Considering that the daughter-in-law was an educated individual employed with Accenture Solutions Private Limited, the court found no evidence suggesting she was left without means or shelter. The court noted that the Magistrate sought to balance the parties' rights, recognizing the father-in-law’s ownership and the daughter-in-law's right to residency, by ordering the provision of alternate rented accommodation within the same locality, subject to a compliance report.
The court also addressed the daughter-in-law's allegations of harassment due to the civil suit filed by her father-in-law for possession, deeming them unsubstantiated, as Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act allowed for eviction through the legal process. The legislature's concern for the daughter-in-law's welfare was met by directing her husband to secure suitable rented accommodation for her within the same locality.
For Petitioner: Advocates Neeraj Gupta and Prateek GoswamiFor Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor Hemant Mehla for State with Advocates Anuj Jain and Jai GabaCase Title: X v State of NCT (2024:DHC:8136)
Please Login or Register
