Judgment Analysis

The above noted case is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2  read with section 151 of CPC that was duly moved by the plaintiff.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The plaintiff is a father-in-law of the defendant no.1 and father of defendant no.2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. A decree of mandatory injunction has been sought by the plaintiff to direct the defendant no.1 to vacate the premises at, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, while a decree of permanent injunction has been sought by the plaintiff so as to restrain the defendant no.1 and others from creating disturbance in the peaceful possession and occupation of the plaintiff’s self-acquired property at Greater Kailash, New Delhi. In prayer Para (b) instead of claiming permanent injunction the plaintiff has wrongly claimed mandatory injunction and such inadvertent mistake on the part of the plaintiff can be ignored. But later on, the plaintiff incorporated the said relief of grant of mandatory injunction through an amendment. Along with the amended suit the plaintiff also filed a fresh application under Order39 Rule 1 & 2, CPC for the grant of interim mandatory injunction to seek a direction to the defendant No.1 to vacate the subject premises till the final disposal of the suit.

ALLEGATION BY PLAINTIFF IN SHORT.

The main allegation of the plaintiff is that he is the sole and absolute owner of the above said property consisting of ground and first floor.

• Plaintiff purchased the suit property by his own funds.
• Plaintiff and his wife suffering from various old age ailment .
• Defendant no. 1 i.e. daughter-in-law is of very violent nature.
• Defendant no.1 is having matrimonial discord with her husband, because of which the plaintiff and his wife are being subjected to suffer at the hands of the defendant no.1.
• Defendant no.2 being the son of the plaintiff was occupying the first floor of the premises as a licensee.  Defendant no.1 being the wife of defendant no.2 was also using the first floor until the relations between the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 became edgy.
• Defendant no.1 was having extra marital affair and relation between husband and wife turned embittered after the discovery of the said extra marital affair .
• Defendant no.1 left the house and she had also executed an affidavit stating her separation from her husband, i.e. defendant no. 2 herein.
• The right of the defendant no.1 to live as wife of defendant no.2 got terminated in terms of the affidavit dated 18.10.2010 and various allegation alleged by the plaintiff against the defendant.
• With these allegations, the plaintiff prayed that the defendant no. 1 be directed to vacate the suit property so that the plaintiff and his wife are able to lead the evenings of their lives peacefully without any stress or trauma.

SUBMISSION BY PLAINTIFF(s) COUNSEL

That the suit property in question is a self-acquired property of the plaintiff who had purchased the same by way of registered Sale Deed and therefore he is fully entitled to peacefully reside in the said property along with his old wife without any sort of interference or disturbance at the hands of defendant No.1.

Counsel also submitted that because of continuous and unabated torture at the hands of defendant No.1, the life of the petitioner and his wife has become miserable and they can collapse at any time if defendant No.1 continues to reside in the said property.

Counsel further submitted that defendant No.2 has already shifted from the said premises to reside in a rented accommodation and instead of shifting with her husband, the defendant No.1 has continued residing at the suit property and has been harassing the plaintiff and his wife by abusing and humiliating them daily and also calling the police every now and then on false pretexts so as to further embarrass them in the presence of their neighbors. Counsel also submitted that due to the marital discord, defendant No.1 had left the said premises permanently on 18.10.2010 and she had also signed an affidavit to that effect but again she had illegally occupied the guest room on the ground floor of the said premises. Counsel also submitted that defendant No.1 had no legal right to stay in the said premises and her occupation was permissive only when she was residing in the suit property with her husband, defendant No.2 herein and once defendant No.2 has shifted to some other accommodation, the defendant No.1 cannot force her to stay in the premises which is exclusively owned by the plaintiff. Counsel further submitted that the legal position is now well settled that daughter-in-law has no legal right whatsoever to reside in the property owned by her parents-in-law and parents- in-law have no obligation to provide a residence to their daughter-in-law. In support of his arguments counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

1. S.R. Batra and Anr. v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 2. Kavita Chaudhari v. Eveneet Singh and Anr., 2012 (130) DRJ 83

Counsel for the plaintiff also submitted that defendant No.1 had earlier obtained an ex-parte injunction from the court of Ld. MM, Saket in a petition filed by her under the Domestic Violence Act by suppressing the fact of filing of the present suit by the plaintiff. Counsel further informed this court that the said ex-parte order dated 20.12.2011 already stands vacated vide order dated 11.1.2012.

STRONGLY OPPOSED BY DEFENDANT

Counsel for the defendant No.1, strongly opposed the grant of the said relief of mandatory injunction at the interim stage. Counsel submitted that the relief of temporary injunction is a purely equitable relief and the same cannot be granted to a person who has played fraud upon the court by suppressing material and vital facts from the court. Counsel submitted that the plaintiff is a permanent resident of Calcutta and came to Delhi in the year 2010 in connivance and conspiracy with defendant No.2 with the sole objective to ouster the defendant No.1 from the suit property. Inviting attention of this court to the documents like voter ID card, passport , certified copy of the application dated 23.4.2012 moved before the family court of Saket, counsel submitted that these documents squarely goes on to show that the plaintiff is a permanent resident of Calcutta and not of Delhi. Counsel also submitted that the plaintiff has played serious fraud upon the court by not disclosing this very fact thereby violating, Section 17 of the Representation of People Act.

Further argument advanced by counsel for defendant No.1 was that the suit property is an ancestral property and being ancestral property it falls in the category of ‘shared household’ in terms of Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Counsel also submitted that the children of the defendants have every right to reside in the suit property under the Hindu Mitakshara Law.

HELD

The plaintiff has been able to establish a very strong prima- facie case in his favour. The defendant No.1 being a daughter-in-law has no right to reside in the subject property which belongs to her father-in-law as the said property is not covered by the definition of ‘shared household’, the same being neither a joint family property in which her husband is a member, nor it belongs to the defendant no. 2 and is not even a rented accommodation owned by the defendant No.2.  Referring to the decision of the Apex court in the case of S. R. Batra and Anr. v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169, which has extensively dealt with the legal position regarding the right of a daughter-in-law in a shared household under Section 17(1) of the DV Act.

In the case of Neetu Mittal v. Kanta Mittal reported in 152 (2008) DLT 691 and the relevant Paras of the same are reproduced as under:-

‘Matrimonial home’ is not defined in any of the statutory provisions. However, phrase “Matrimonial home” refers to the place which is dwelling house used by the parties, i.e., husband and wife or a place which was being used by husband and wife as the family residence. Matrimonial home is not necessarily the house of the parents of the husband. In fact the parents of the husband may allow him to live with them so long as their relations with the son (husband) are cordial and full of love and affection. But if the relations of the son or daughter-in-law with the parents of husband turn sour and are not cordial, the parents can turn them out of their house. The son can live in the house of parents as a matter of right only if the house is an ancestral house in which the son has a share and he can enforce the partition. Where the house is self-acquired house of the parents, son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents upto the time the parents allow. Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden throughout the life.

The hon;ble court further held,  defendant No.1, being a daughter-in-law of the plaintiff, has no right as against the plaintiff i.e. her father-in-law, to occupy any portion of the subject property, which is his self- acquired property.

The Court has to prima-facie consider the right of defendant No.1 to reside in the property owned by her father-in-law and as discussed above, defendant No.1 has no legitimate right to stay in the self-acquired property of her parents-in-law unless permitted by the parents- in-law themselves.

In the light of the above discussion, the balance of convenience strongly lies in favour of the plaintiff as against defendant No.1. The non- grant of the interim mandatory injunction will result in causing more prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff in comparison with the alleged rights of the defendant No.1 to stay in an accommodation which is neither a matrimonial home nor a shared household accommodation.

Interim mandatory injunction is therefore granted in favour of the petitioner and against the defendant no. 1. Defendant No.1 is accordingly directed to vacate the subject property and hand over peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiff within a period of one month from the date of this order. It is further directed that concerned Court seized with the petition filed by defendant No.1 under Domestic Violence Act shall decide the interim application of defendant No.1 for the grant of maintenance, which will include her right to a residence in the commensurate property as per the financial status of defendant No.2, within a period of one month from the date of this order. Defendant No.1 in the meanwhile is also set at liberty to shift to the rented accommodation as offered by defendant No.2 for her exclusive residence along with her children or to accept an amount of Rs.30,000 towards the amount of rent, pending disposal of her maintenance application before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate/ Mahila Court .With the above directions the present application stands disposed of.

CONCLUSION

Daughter in law cannot claim her property right in the self acquired property of father in law.

Only it depends on the discretion of father in law to give space to his son and his wife i.e. daughter in law to live in the given space as a licensee only.

Wife can claim her exclusive residential right to his husband as per his status.

Self acquired property or living as a licensee in the father in law property could not meet the legal position of share household. 

You may contact me for your specific case by visiting Contact Us