Right Of Residence U/S 19 Of Domestic Violence Act Not Indefeasible In Shared Household When Daughter In Law Pitted Against Aged In Laws: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that the right of residence under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household, especially, when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law.

"Thus, where the residence is a shared household, it does not create any embargo upon the owner to claim eviction against his daughter-in-law. A strained frictional relationship between the parties would be relevant to decide whether the grounds of eviction exist," Justice Yogesh Khanna added.

The Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.07.2018 passed in a Civil Suit.

The respondent claimed to be an absolute and sole owner of the property in question vide a registered sale deed dated 27.09.2004. The respondent had originally filed a suit for eviction against the defendant (appellant herein) being his daughter-in-law.

A decree of possession with damages equivalent to the market rent of the alleged illegal possession was therefore passed against the appellant and also a decree of permanent injunction to restrain her from creating any third party right in such property.

It was submitted that after the marriage of the son of respondent with appellant in the year 2003, they both were residing together with the respondent and thereafter they shifted to the suit property when it was purchased in the year 2004.

It was thus the case of the appellant daughter in law that she being a legally wedded wife of respondent's son had been residing with her two minor daughters in one room with an attached bathroom and a balcony in the suit property, marked in the site plan.

The main plea of the appellant was that one S. Kesar Singh had purchased the suit property out of the joint family funds and sale proceeds of the ancestral property and that after his death, the subject property was purchased by the respondent from such ancestral funds, hence the suit property was a joint family property in which the appellant also had a right to reside.

The Trial Court had however held that the property was a self-acquired property of the respondent and the appellant was residing in the property as his daughter-in-law and after termination of the license, she had no right to stay therein.

"Admittedly, the husband of the appellant is not residing in the subject property since 2016 and the respondent had also undertaken he would provide an alternate property of same status to the appellant herein and hence in these circumstances if she can insist to stay in the subject property when her old parents in law intend to live a peaceful life, is to be answered. The first question is if it is an ancestral property?," the Court noted.

The Court was of the view that the appellant did not file any document to show the existence of any Hindu Undivided Family in the name of S.Kesar Singh and sons or that the property was ever an ancestral property or allegedly purchased from ancestral funds.

However, the Court noted that the documents filed on record by the respondent showed that it was a self acquired property of S.Kesar Singh and not an HUF property or an ancestral property.

"The submissions of the appellant are thus merely assertions without basis and without any prima facie proof," the Court said.

It added "Admittedly where the parties are residing is a flat, having only three bed rooms, a drawing room and the appellant is in possession of a room in the said flat, then considering there are various complaints filed by them against each other; their relations being not cordial, would it in such circumstances, be appropriate for them to stay together and fight every minute of their existence."

"Admittedly, the right of residence under Section 19 of the DV Act is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household, especially, when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. In this case, both being senior citizens of aged about 74 and 69 years and being in the evening of their life, are entitled to live peacefully and not to be haunted by the marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law."

The Court therefore observed that since there existed a frictional relationship between the parties, it would not be advisable for old parents to stay with appellant daughter in law and hence it would be appropriate if an alternative accommodation is provided to the appellant as directed in the impugned order as per sec. 19(1)(f) of the Act.

"Thus, where the residence is a shared household, it does not create any embargo upon the owner to claim eviction against his daughter-in-law. A strained frictional relationship between the parties would be relevant to decide whether the grounds of eviction exist," the Court observed.

While dismissing the said appeal, the Court added:

"The undertaking made at Bar to provide an alternative accommodation to the appellant till her matrimony exists be filed in the form of an affidavit of the respondent within two weeks from today before the learned Trial Court. The execution of decree be postponed till such suitable alternative accommodation is found and the applicant is conveniently shifted therein."

Case Title: RAVNEET KAUR v. PRITHPAL SINGH DHINGRA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 151

Click Here To Read Order