In a significant legal determination, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that a daughter-in-law does not possess an autonomous right to remain in a mother-in-law’s self-acquired property once the husband’s rights have been nullified. This ruling was pronounced by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, following a plea by the daughter-in-law contesting a civil court’s decision to evict her.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around a couple who entered into matrimony in 2003. Initially, they resided with the husband’s mother. However, due to familial discord, the couple relocated, only to return in 2014 to the mother-in-law’s property. The mother-in-law had established a formal license agreement with her son, stipulating a monthly rent of ₹3,000, which was subsequently not honored. Consequently, in 2017, she formally evicted her son from the premises, although the daughter-in-law and her child continued to reside there.
Legal Proceedings and Arguments
The mother-in-law initiated a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the couple from establishing any third-party rights over her property. In 2019, a decree was rendered in favor of the mother-in-law. Challenging this decision, the daughter-in-law approached the High Court, asserting her right to reside in what she termed the ‘matrimonial household’, despite its ownership by her mother-in-law.
Court’s Findings and Judgment
Justice Bansal Krishna clarified that the property in question was not a ‘shared household’ as per legal definitions concerning the couple. The court recognized that the mother-in-law had rescinded the license granted to her son, which effectively nullified the daughter-in-law’s claim to the property. The court emphasized that protections provided under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are enforceable against the husband and not the mother-in-law.
The judgment further elucidated, “Her rights and obligations shall not exceed those of the tenant himself. Once the husband’s license is terminated, no superior protection is warranted for the appellant.” Consequently, the court dismissed the daughter-in-law’s appeal.
Representation
The daughter-in-law was represented by Advocate Charu Ambwani, while the mother-in-law was represented by a team of advocates including Saurabh Agarwal, Manuj Kaushik, and Karan Ahuja.
