Can’t stay at in-laws’ acquired house against their wishes: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 29

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a daughter-in-law has no right to residence in the self-acquired property of her parents-in-law and she cannot be allowed to live in their house against their wishes.

Referring to a plethora of judgments on the issue, Justice Raj Mohan Singh asserted that parents-in-law having self-acquired property were the real owners and the daughter-in-law had no right to claim it as shared house. The daughter-in-law had moved the High Court, assailing an order dated August 6 passed by the Sonepat Additional District Judge, restraining her from entering the matrimonial home.

The matter has its genesis in a civil suit, in which the plaintiff-mother-in-law had averred that the defendant-daughter-in-law had threatened to dispossess her and her husband from the property. The mother-in-law had claimed that the property was owned by her on the strength of a registered sale deed dated January 11, 2017.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the marriage of the defendant-petitioner was solemnised in April 2012. The petitioner had two children, but was having a matrimonial dispute with her husband. The petitioner had threatened to commit suicide and implicate the respondent-mother-in-law and her family in several false cases.

Taking up the matter, Justice Raj Mohan Singh noted that the trial court, vide an order dated July 4, dismissed the application for interim injunction by the mother-in-law after observing that the residence was a shared house under the Domestic Violence Act and as such, the defendant-petitioner could not be forcibly evicted as her belongings were lying there, but the Additional District Judge restrained her from entering the matrimonial home.

Taking up the revision petition through video-conferencing, Justice Raj Mohan Singh observed that it had been held in the judgments referred to that the daughter-in-law did not have any right to protection under Section 17 of the Act for the purpose of living in the house belonging to her parents-in-law and exclusively owned by them.

“I find that the petitioner has no right of residence in the house in question under Section 17 of the Act for the purpose of living in the self-acquired property of the plaintiff-respondent. I do not find any justification to differ with the order dated August 6 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat. This revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed,” Justice Raj Mohan Singh asserted.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.