Delhi High Court said that mother-in-law or father-in-law can also take steps against daughter-in-law who quarrel daily

Fights happen in every house, but at some places the matter increases so much that it becomes difficult for the rest of the family members to live. The Delhi High Court has given an important decision in this regard. The court has said that the daughter-in-law of a quarrelsome nature has no right to live in a joint house and the property owner can evict her from the house. The High Court said that elderly parents have the right to lead a peaceful life. If the daughter-in-law is not ready to give up the habit of chik-chik every day, then she can be thrown out of the house.

The decision of the lower court was challenged

The Delhi High Court has clearly said that under the Domestic Violence Act, a daughter-in-law does not have the right to live in a joint house and she can be evicted by the elderly in-laws, as they are entitled to lead a peaceful life. Justice Yogesh Khanna was hearing an appeal filed by a daughter-in-law against a trial court’s order denying her the right to live in her in-laws’ house.

‘Alternate accommodation to be provided’

The judge said that in the case of a joint house, there is no restriction on the owner of the property concerned to evict his daughter-in-law. He said that in the present case it would be appropriate to provide the petitioner with some alternative accommodation till the time her marriage continues. Justice Khanna said that in the present case both the in-laws are senior citizens and they are entitled to lead a peaceful life and not be affected by marital discord between son and daughter-in-law.

Husband lives in a rented house

The judge in his judgment said, “I am of the view that since there is a strained relationship between the two parties, it would not be appropriate for the aged mother-in-law to live with the petitioner at the last stage of life.” Therefore, it would be appropriate that the petitioner be provided with an alternative accommodation under Section 19(1)(AF) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In this case, a complaint was also filed by the husband against the wife, who lives separately in a rented house and has not made any claim on the property concerned.

Hight Court dismissed the appeal

The High Court said that the right to housing under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act is not an inalienable right to live in a joint household, especially in cases where the daughter-in-law is pitted against her elderly mother-in-law. “In the present case, the father-in-law are senior citizens of about 74 and 69 years of age and are entitled to live peacefully without being plagued by marital discord between son and daughter-in-law as they are at the end of their lives,” the court said. The High Court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and at the same time accepted the affidavit of the respondent father-in-law that he would provide alternative accommodation to the petitioner till the daughter-in-law’s matrimonial relationship with his son continues.

What is the whole matter?

The mother-in-law had become troubled by the daily quarrels of their son and daughter-in-law. After some time the son left the house and shifted to the rented house, but the daughter-in-law remained with her elderly mother-in-law. She didn’t want to leave the house. Whereas, the mother-in-law wanted to remove the daughter-in-law from the house. For this the father-in-law also filed a petition in the court. The woman’s father-in-law had filed a suit for possession before the trial court in 2016 on the ground that he was the absolute owner of the property and that his son lived at some other place and was not inclined to live with his daughter-in-law. At the same time, the petitioner had argued that the property was bought from the income from the sale of ancestral property in addition to the joint capital of the family, so he too has a right to live there. The trial court had passed the order of possession in favor of the respondent and said that the petitioner has no right to stay there.