The Delhi High Court considered a case in which a woman asserted her right to live in the marital home of her husband and his family, relying on the protection afforded under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). Her husband’s parents, who owned the residence, claimed that the property was self-acquired, and further stated that they had disowned their son, the husband, in 2010. The property was thus claimed by the father-in-law as his sole asset, and he sought to evict the daughter-in-law.
The wife argued that after her marriage she had lived in the house as part of the husband’s family and thus the residence qualified as a “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and she had a right to reside there under Section 17(1). While ownership or beneficial interest was not required under the Act, the court stressed that certain conditions must nonetheless be met for it to qualify as a shared household. The court examined whether the husband had any independent right or interest in the property, and whether the defendant parents’ disowning of the husband affected that status.
The court found that the father-in-law had disowned the son and asserted that the property was self-acquired and not purchased from joint family funds; the husband had no share or title. Because the husband had been disowned and was not residing in the property, it could not be said that he was a member of the household in relation to that property. The court held that if the husband has no legal right, title or beneficial interest in the property and is not living there, then the premises cannot be treated as a shared household for the purpose of the DV Act. Accordingly, the daughter-in-law could not claim the protection of a shared household to reside in the father-in-law’s property against the father-in-law’s wishes.
In reaching its decision, the court observed that the daughter-in-law’s occupation of the property was by virtue of her husband’s relationship but since the husband had been effectively disowned, the underlying foundation for her claim under Section 17 collapsed. The court noted that the legal strategy of “disowning” sons after marital discord should not be lightly ignored but must be examined in context of the husband’s interest and residence status. The court affirmed that a woman’s right to residence under the DV Act is not absolute in every case simply because she is married and lived in that house post-marriage; the right depends on the property being a shared household of which the husband is a member.
Thus, the High Court dismissed the daughter-in-law’s appeal and upheld the father-in-law’s right to evict her, holding that the property did not qualify as a shared household under the statute, given that the husband had no ownership or occupancy rights there and the father-in-law had disowned him. The ruling clarifies that in cases where a husband is disowned and has no interest or residence in his parents’ property, the wife cannot rely on the DV Act’s shared household protection to claim right of residence in that property.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.