A woman has no right over the property of her in-laws other than husband - Delhi Court

A woman’s right over the property of her husband is an undisputed fact. In a 2014 decision, a Delhi Court held that she could not claim a right of residence over property of her in-laws in which her husband had no share. The Court dismissed the appeal of a woman, a doctor by profession, who had sought rights over her in-laws’ property on which her husband did not have any share. (Note: as explained in the update at the end of this article, the Supreme Court has since taken a wider view of what counts as a “shared household,” so the law on this point has changed.)

“If it is anybody against whom or against whose property she (woman) can assert her rights, is the husband, but under no circumstances can she thrust herself on the parents of her husband or can claim a right to live in their house against their consult and wishes,” Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau said.

The court said she is a working woman and being a doctor, she is in a position to maintain herself. “Keeping in view the problems and disputes between the parties, allowing the woman to stay in her parents-in-law’s house against their wishes would only aggravate the existing domestic problems and create numerous hassles for these senior citizens, which this court will not permit,” the judge said. The court also said even if the woman was permitted by her parents-in-law to live in their house, it does not create any legal right, violation of which would be actionable.

On the contrary, under no circumstances the parents can be made to suffer the burdens of their sons and their estranged daughters-in-law, it said. The court’s observations came while dealing with the appeal of the woman who had contended that her mother-in-law had abused and misused the process of law by making false submissions. She challenged the trial court’s order saying it did not appreciate the fact that her mother-in-law had in connivance with her husband dispossessed her from shared household accommodation in Pitampura.

She had sought to set aside the trial court’s order dismissing her plea seeking right to residence in the house owned by her mother-in-law. The Sessions court noted that the woman’s husband was working and residing separately in Chandigarh for the past several years. The court said the matrimonial house of the woman under the given circumstances was the place where her husband was working and residing and not where she chose to reside of her free will.

“By application of the logic and ratio of the apex court to the facts of this case, I hereby hold that the woman is only entitled to claim the right of residence in a shared household, which, as contemplated under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, would mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by her husband or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member.

“In the present case, the property in question at Pitampura here is the exclusive property of the respondent who is the mother-in-law of the appellant, with her husband having no share in the same, and hence, the property in question in respect of which the appellant is seeking right of residence cannot be called a shared household within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,” the judge said.

Important update: this 2014 view is no longer good law

The reasoning in the order above followed the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007), which had narrowly held that a “shared household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, meant only a house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or a house belonging to the joint family of which the husband is a member.

That position has since changed. In Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414 (decided 15 October 2020), a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court expressly held that S.R. Batra did not lay down the correct law and overruled it on this point. The Court clarified that the definition of “shared household” in Section 2(s) of the Act is not restricted to property owned or tenanted by the husband. A “shared household” can include a house owned by the husband’s parents or other relatives, provided the woman has at some stage lived there in a domestic relationship. Whether a particular property qualifies as a shared household is a question of fact to be decided in each case.

As a result, the broad proposition that a woman can “under no circumstances” claim a right of residence in property owned by her in-laws no longer reflects the current law. A daughter-in-law may, depending on the facts, claim a right of residence under the 2005 Act even in a house owned by her parents-in-law, although such a right is not the same as a right of ownership and the in-laws may seek her eviction in appropriate proceedings. Anyone facing such a dispute should obtain advice based on the post-Satish Chander Ahuja position.

If you need any further information or clarification in this regard, please feel free to contact us or post your queries on our website where one of our exclusively appointed legal experts will help you more: delhi-lawyers.in