Right Of Daughter-In-Law In A Shared Household Is Not An Indefeasible Right: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the right of the daughter-in-law in a shared household is not an indefeasible right and it cannot be to the exclusion of the in-laws.
A Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed, “… the concept of ‘shared household’ clearly provides that the right of the daughter-in-law in a shared household is not an indefeasible right and cannot be to the exclusion of the in-laws. The stand of the Petitioner that the in-laws should not be allowed to live in their own property is completely contrary to the settled understanding on the subject. The daughter-in-law, while claiming rights to live in her matrimonial home or shared household, cannot be seen to argue that the in-laws ought not to live with her in the shared household. If circumstances exist which demonstrate that they cannot live together, alternate accommodation may also have to be explored for the daughter-in-law.”
The Bench relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja CA No. 2483/2020 wherein it was held that senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law.
Advocate Harshvardhan Pandey appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Advocate Rosemary Raju appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, there was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her in-laws and husband i.e., the respondents. The petitioner i.e., the daughter-in-law filed a petition challenging the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD (DC).
The petitioner’s in-laws were senior citizens who preferred an eviction petition before the District Magistrate (DM) under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The said plea was decided in favour of the in-laws as a result of which the petitioner filed an appeal against the same and hence the DC set aside the eviction but permitted the in-laws to live in the suit property along with the petitioner.
The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “In the present case, the DC has merely held that the Respondent No. 1 and 2 have a right to stay in the suit property, which obviously cannot be questioned because the property belongs to them. The Petitioner is currently in occupation of the entire property consisting of one floor. The Petitioner is not willing to considering shifting to any alternate premises, though the same is offered by the Respondents 1 and 2.”
The Court after issuing necessary directions said that the parties shall ensure that they maintain peace and order and do not engage in any acrimony and that the locks to the suit property shall be changed and the petitioner and respondents shall have duplicate keys of the rooms.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the plea.
Cause Title- Ritu Chernalia v. Amar Chernalia & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:3612)
