The Delhi High Court has ruled that a daughter-in-law cannot claim an independent right to continue residing in her mother-in-law’s self-acquired property once the residential rights granted to her husband come to an end. The Court held that ownership rights of the mother-in-law cannot be defeated by such residential claims.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a daughter-in-law cannot claim an independent right to continue living in her mother-in-law’s self-acquired property after the residential rights that had been granted to her husband come to an end.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed an appeal filed by the woman against a civil court order directing her eviction from her mother-in-law’s property.
The Court clarified that, even if a daughter-in-law has a right of residence, it can be enforced against her husband not against the mother-in-law who owns the property exclusively.
The Court observed,
“Any right of residence is against the husband and not against the mother-in-law,” .
The dispute arose after the parties married in 2003.
They initially lived with the husband’s mother, but later moved due to family disagreements. In 2014, they returned and began residing in the mother-in-law’s self-acquired house.
Subsequently, the mother-in-law entered into a licence arrangement with her son through a rent agreement, requiring payment of Rs.3,000 per month. When the rent was not paid, she terminated the arrangement and publicly disowned her son from her property in 2017.
Despite the termination of the licence, the daughter-in-law and her child continued to stay in the premises.
Thereafter, the mother-in-law filed a civil suit seeking protection of her ownership rights and a restraining order preventing the couple from creating any third-party interest in the property. The civil court ultimately passed a decree in her favour.
Before the High Court, the daughter-in-law argued that she was entitled to reside in the matrimonial home even though the house belonged to her mother-in-law.
The Court rejected the argument, holding that the property was the mother-in-law’s self-acquired asset and, in the circumstances of the case, could not be treated as a “shared household.”
The Court further noted that once the licence granted to the husband had been terminated, neither the husband nor the wife retained any legal right, title, or interest in the property.
The Court also emphasized that reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 cannot give the daughter-in-law a right greater than that available to her husband.
The Court held,
“Her rights and obligations shall not be higher or larger than those of the tenant himself. Herein, once the license of the husband itself has been terminated, no better protection can be accorded to the Appellant,”
In view of these findings, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree in favour of the mother-in-law.
The judgment reiterates that a daughter-in-law cannot claim continued occupation of her mother-in-law’s self-acquired property solely because it was once used as the matrimonial residence.
It clarifies that residence protections under the Domestic Violence Act generally operate against the husband and do not automatically confer proprietary or occupancy rights against the mother-in-law’s exclusive ownership.