Death Of Husband Does Not, By Itself, Sever His Wife's Right To Reside In Shared Household: Delhi High Court

The Court upheld a decree for possession obtained by an owner against the family of his deceased son. It made the decree executable only after the owner secures suitable alternate accommodation for the widowed daughter-in-law, or pays rent of Rs.15,000 per month. It set aside the decree for damages and mesne profits.

A Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “…the death of the husband does not, by itself, sever the daughter-in-law's right to reside in the shared household, and the right is not dependent upon actual or continuous residence”.

“…while the right of residence in a shared household does not operate as an absolute bar against recovery of possession by the owner, the Court is required to mould the relief so that the woman is not deprived of shelter, and suitable alternate accommodation is secured before her eviction”, the Bench further observed.

Advocates Tripurari Jha appeared for the appellants and Advocate Shantanu Singh appeared for the respondent.

The respondent, Attar Singh, had bought a Janta Flat in Paschim Vihar through documents dated July 29, 1988. He said his elder son, Raj Kumar, and his family lived there as licensees. He terminated the licence by notice dated December 01, 2012, and sued for possession and damages of Rs.10,000 per month. The son said he was a tenant paying rent of Rs.1,000 per month.

The son’s defence was struck off on September 16, 2014, for non-payment of costs of Rs.5,000. He died on July 25, 2015, and his wife, Manju Verma, and two daughters were brought on record as legal representatives. Their applications to set aside the order and to be impleaded in their own right were dismissed. The Additional District Judge decreed the suit on May 22, 2023, awarding mesne profits from January 01, 2013. The legal representatives appealed.

The Court rejected their challenge to the title, holding that they had stepped into the husband’s shoes and were estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act. It found no proof that the property was joint family property. It held, however, that the shared household question is a pure question of law that can be raised on appeal, and that Section 26 of the Act allows such relief in civil proceedings.

Placing reliance on precedents, the Court held that the suit property was Manju Verma’s shared household. It said the owner’s public notice of June 04, 2006, disowning the son did not efface the domestic relationship. It found that the trial court had examined only title and licence, not her independent right of residence. It also held that the right is not absolute, and that a suit for possession is maintainable.

The Court read Sections 19 and 3(b) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as making residence part of a father-in-law’s duty to maintain a widowed daughter-in-law. It noted that the respondent lived elsewhere, while she had lived in the property for over two decades with no other residence shown.

“It may also be observed that the permissive nature of the occupation of Defendant No. 1 and the exclusive ownership of the Plaintiff, do not detract from the right of Appellant No. 1. Her right of residence does not flow from any right, title or interest of her husband in the suit property, but from her own domestic relationship with the family of the Plaintiff, in the household which belongs to him. It is, therefore, an independent right and not merely a right derived through her husband”, the Bench said.

Cause Title: Late Raj Kumar @ Babbal (Deceased) through L.Rs. Manju Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Attar Singh (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9028)

Appearances:

Appellants: Advocates Tripurari Jha and Brajesh Kumar.

Respondent: Advocates Shantanu Singh and Rajneesh Tingal.

Click here to read/download the Judgment