Aggrieved Woman Is Entitled To Enforce Her Right To Reside In Shared Household: Bombay High Court Upholds Estranged Wife’s Claim Against Mother-In-Law

The Bombay High Court has upheld the claim of an estranged wife against her mother-in-law in a case related to the tenancy.

The said woman had filed a Civil Revision Application against the Judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes.

A Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar observed, “The right to reside in the shared household is, in fact, de hors such right, title or interest. The right to reside stems from the domestic relationship, which has its nexus with the shared household. If these two conditions are satisfied, then notwithstanding the absence of any right, title or interest in the shared household, the aggrieved woman is entitled to enforce her right to reside in the shared household, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time in force.”

The Bench said that the Parliament professed to secure the right to residence to a woman in a domestic relationship, by giving an overriding effect to the said right by incorporating a non-obstante clause and such right is available qua a shared house hold.

Advocate R.R. Nair appeared on behalf of the Applicant while Advocate Anil D’souza appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The dispute between the parties arose out of matrimonial and familial discord. The Respondent/Plaintiff was the mother of D1 (Respondent no.2) and D2 (Appellant) was the estranged wife of D1. Plaintiff’s husband was the tenant in respect of the suit premises, who passed away in 1986, leaving behind his wife, two sons, and a daughter. As per the Plaintiff, in 2005, her children relinquished their tenancy rights in her favour. Thereupon, she became the sole tenant and the landlord had issued the rent receipts in her favour only. Since the marital life of D1 and D2 was afflicted with discord and there were frequent quarrels and the premises in occupation of the family was insufficient, they were allowed to occupy the suit premises as gratuitous licensee.

In 2013, the Defendants, however raked up quarrels with the Plaintiff and allegedly exerted pressure on her to transfer the tenancy in favour of the Appellant/D2 with a view to settle the claim in matrimonial proceedings. Thus, the Plaintiff called upon the Defendants to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to her. As they did not accede to her request, she instituted a suit to recover possession. The Civil Judge dismissed the suit holding that the Plaintiff failed to establish that D2 was a gratuitous licensee and that the alleged surrender of tenancy by D1 was with an intent to deprive D2 of the right of residence. The Plaintiff preferred an Appeal and the Appellate Bench overturned the findings of the Trial Court and being aggrieved, the Appellant/D2 approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “The expression, “whether or not she has any right, title or interest or beneficial interest in the same”, which follows the term “shared household” is of critical salience.”

The Court was of the view that the Appellate Bench was clearly in error in observing that the question as to whether D2 had any right to reside in the suit premises was beyond the remit of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes.

“In view of the provisions contained in Section 26 of the DV Act, 2005 and in the context of the clear assertion by the defendant No.2 that she had a right to reside in the suit premises, being the wife of defendant No.1, it was incumbent upon the Appellate Bench to decide the question whether defendant No.2 was entitled to enforce her right of residence”, it added.

The Court further observed that the evidence on record clearly establishes that D2 started to reside in the suit premises since the year 1999, much prior to the alleged conferment of exclusive tenancy rights upon the Plaintiff.

“… the Appellate Bench was not justified in taking a constricted view of the matter, and passing the decree for eviction. The learned Judge, Court of Small Causes was right in holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish that defendant No.2 was a gratuitous licensee”, it also said.

The Court, therefore, concluded that the occupation of D2 was referable to her right to reside in the suit premises, which constituted the shared household, in view of the domestic relationship the D2 had both with D1 and the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Revision Application and quashed the impugned Judgment.

Cause Title- Aarti v. Pushpaben Popatlal Modi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:37013)

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocate R.R. Nair

Respondents: Advocates Anil D’souza and Kartik Vig.

Click here to read/download the Judgment