READ ORDER | Mother-in-Law Being Owner Of Property, Can Evict Troublesome Daughter-in-Law From Shared Matrimonial Household: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that a mother-in-law – being the owner of the property – is not barred from claiming eviction against her daughter-in-law where the residence is a shared household.

Justice Asha Menon observed,

Where a residence is clearly a shared household, it does not bar the owner, the plaintiff herein, from claiming eviction against her daughter-in-law, if the circumstances call for it.

The Bench thus granted a decree of possession in favour of a mother-in-law and against the daughter-in-law and her mother, while granting them three months time to vacate the premises.

Case:

The daughter-in-law had come into the suit premises after her marriage in August 2014. The son of the plaintiff passed away in September 2020.

Subsequently, a case arose out of a civil suit seeking possession, damages and permanent injunction with regards to a property wherein the mother-in-law claimed to be the exclusive and absolute owner of the property.

Thus, this suit was filed by the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law and her mother.

Submission by Mother-in-Law

The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the daughter-in-law was making life miserable for her deceased husband’s mother, by filing cases against her and raising quarrels as she was claiming rights in the suit property and other properties belonging to the plaintiff. The daughter-in-law was allegedly also raising disputes with the grandson of the plaintiff (born to her late son and his first wife).

It was submitted that the daughter-in-law was being aided by her mother, who had come from Pune after the demise of the son of the plaintiff in September, 2020 and despite having no rights to remain in the suit premises had continued to remain there.

Arguments by Defendants

It was the case of daughter in law that the mother in law had only a life interest in the suit property. It was further stated that the mother-in-law herself executed a registered Will dated in December 2019, acknowledging that the the daughter-in-law had been residing in the shared household along with her husband, therefore bequeathing the property in equal shares to her daughter and her son.

Invoking Protection of Domestic Violence Act 2005, defendant no. 1 (daughter-in-law) demanded her right to residence in the suit premises, as per an interim order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 14th January, 2021. The learned counsel also submitted that the defendant No.2 (daughter-in-law’s mother) was herself a widowed and aged lady and she had no other place to go and therefore, she too could not be evicted. It was submitted that the allegations of the plaintiff that the defendants had an alternative place of residence in Pune, Maharashtra are vague and cannot be believed.

Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court noted that even though the mother of daughter-in-law, defendant no. 2, had come to reside with her daughter in order to comfort her, she had no right to continue to stay in the suit premises, once the mother-in-law (owner of the property) had expressed her desire that she should leave.

The Court was of the view that the defendant no. 2 had no right to either question the title of the mother in law, or assert the right to residence in the suit premises as she had no such rights to remain in the premises.

On the issue of title of the property, the Court noted that the daughter-in-law had made two conflicting statements:

(i) that the mother in law executed a will bequeathing her property, and

(ii) that the mother in law had only a life interest in the suit property

The court noted,

Here, the defendants have admitted to the existence of the Relinquishment Deed and the Conveyance Deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. Merely raising the bogey of a life interest does not detract from the admissions made, thus acknowledging the exclusive title of the plaintiff to the suit property.

The documents as noticed have never been challenged and the raising of pleas that are untenable leading to a fruitless enquiry in trial should be avoided.

Shared Matrimonial Household

It was also the case of the defendants that as the suit property was shared household of the daughter-in-law, the suit itself could not be instituted. However, the plaintiff had argued that according to the judgment of the Supreme Court, a civil suit for possession is in consonance with the provisions of sec. 17 of the Domestic Violence Act.

The Court therefore reiterated that the mere fact that premises take on the nature of shared household would not per se be a complete defence to a suit for possession filed by the owner of the property, being the in-laws of the aggrieved person, nor is such a suit barred. The court observed thus,

The protection under the DV Act assuring the residence of the aggrieved person in the shared household does not vest any proprietary or indefeasible right on the aggrieved person.

Adding further, the Delhi High Court said,

Nor does the right of residence allowed to aggrieved person extend to her insisting on the right of residence in a particular premises. Section 19 of the DV Act provides for an alternate accommodation being given to the aggrieved person of the same level in certain circumstances.

Thus, it is clear that even where a residence is clearly a shared household, it does not bar the owner, the plaintiff herein, from claiming eviction against her daughter-in-law, if the circumstances call for it.

Mother & Sister of Daughter-in-Law Claiming Rights Too

The Court added that by inducting her mother as well as her sister, the daughter-in-law had made an attempt to assert rights in respect of the suit property, clearly causing distress to the mother in law. The court remarked,

In view of the clear facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is clearly entitled to seek possession of the suit premises from the two defendants without the rigours of an unnecessary and prolonged trial at her age.

Accordingly, disposing of the matter, the Court ordered thus,

The defendants are granted three months time to vacate the premises, subject to Covid-19 conditions, in which event, they can move the court for further time to vacate.

CLICK ON THE LINK TO READ FULL ORDERDownload

ALSO WATCH –

Should Daughter-in-Law Be Allowed In Matrimonial Home After DV On In-Laws?

Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below

Donate to Voice For Men India

If you find value in our work, you may choose to donate to Voice For Men Foundation via Milaap OR via UPI: voiceformenindia@hdfcbank (80G tax exemption applicable)

Donate Now (80G Eligible)