D.V. Act. Wife’s right to stay in her in-laws house not indefeasible. Senior Citizens not to be haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter in law. Supreme Court 15:10:2020.

Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ajuja, Civil Appeal 2483/2020. Decided on 15 October 2020. Justice Ashok Bhushan. Justice R. Subhash Reddy Justice M.R. Shah. Judgment link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/689/689_2020_37_1501_24378_Judgement_15-Oct-2020.pdf

While holding that “Shared household” in Section 2(s) need not be the joint family household or household or in which husband has a share and that wife can stay in the house of her in-laws, the Supreme Court has also expressed its concern about the lives of senior citizens i.e. mother in law and father in law. The Supreme Court has approved directions of the High Court in this regard.

Relevant paragraph: 83. Before we close our discussion on Section 2(s), we need to observe that the right to residence under Section 19 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. The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law. While granting relief both in application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 or in any civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties. The directions issued by High court in paragraph 56 adequately balances the rights of both the parties..

The High Court gave directions that where the wife specifically disputes the exclusive ownership rights of the in-laws over the suit premises notwithstanding the title documents in their favour, the Trial Court, while granting her an opportunity to lead evidence in support of her claim, will be entitled to pass interim orders on applications moved by the in-laws, directing the appellant to vacate the suit premises subject to the provision of a suitable alternate accommodation to her under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, which direction would also be subject to the final outcome of the suit. The Supreme Court has also held that suit by father in law for removal of his daughter in law from his property is maintainable and that the pendency of proceedings under the D.V. Act or any order interim or final passed under the D.V. Act under Section 19 regarding the right of residence is not an embargo for initiating or continuing any civil proceedings, which relate to the subject matter of the proceedings under the D.V. Act, 2005.

Compiled by S.Basavaraj, Advocate Daksha Legal