Delhi High Court rules that in-laws can evict a daughter-in-law from their home if suitable alternate accommodation is provided, reinforcing senior citizens’ right to peaceful living.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, in a landmark ruling, has addressed the sensitive issue of competing rights between senior citizens and a daughter-in-law residing in a shared household. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that a civil court has the jurisdiction to grant an interim mandatory injunction for the eviction of a daughter-in-law from a property owned by her mother-in-law, provided suitable alternate accommodation is arranged.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose when a 68-year-old mother-in-law and her 70-year-old husband sought the eviction of their son and daughter-in-law from their self-acquired property in Satbari, Chhatarpur, New Delhi. The property, acquired in 2005 via a registered sale deed, was owned solely by the mother-in-law.
The son and daughter-in-law, married in 2009, had been living with the plaintiffs. However, severe marital discord erupted in 2023, prompting the son to file for divorce. The conflict intensified with multiple police complaints and legal proceedings, including an FIR filed by the daughter-in-law under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, and proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act). She also secured an interim order restraining her dispossession from the property.
The plaintiffs alleged that the constant hostility had created an unbearable atmosphere, worsening the health of the father-in-law, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease. Although the son had vacated the property, the daughter-in-law remained, which led to further strain.
ALSO READ: Divorced Couples Can’t Divorce Their Parental Duties: Kerala High Court
Arguments Before the Court
Plaintiffs’ submissions:
- As rightful owners, they were entitled to peaceful possession and residence.
- The daughter-in-law’s behavior, including verbal abuse, vandalism, and false complaints, made cohabitation impossible.
- They offered to provide alternate accommodation at a monthly rent of ₹1.5 lakhs, equivalent to where their son resided.
Defendant (Daughter-in-law)’s submissions:
- The suit was collusive, filed in connivance with her husband.
- The civil court lacked jurisdiction under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
- The property was a “shared household” under the PWDV Act, giving her a right to reside there.
- Relying on Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, she argued that eviction cannot be ordered at the interim stage.
- Given the property’s large size, she could reside separately on another floor.
ALSO READ: Old Mist vs. Old Monk: Himachal HC Halts Sale Over Trademark Clash
Court’s Findings
On Maintainability:
The court rejected the objection on jurisdiction, holding that a civil suit by a property owner for eviction is a valid legal procedure under Section 17(2) of the PWDV Act.
The court recognized its power to grant interim mandatory injunctions. Drawing parallels with Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act, it held that civil courts could direct eviction subject to alternate accommodation being provided.
Reliance was placed on Ambika Jain v. Ram Prakash Sharma, approved by the Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Ahuja, empowering trial courts to issue such directions.
The court noted the irretrievable breakdown of relations and a “toxic living environment.” It emphasized that forcing parties to cohabit under such conditions was against their interests, including those of the minor children.
The court dismissed the defendant’s argument about enjoying a “lavish lifestyle,” stating that peace and independence outweigh luxury in such circumstances.
Final Directions:
The High Court granted an interim mandatory injunction, directing the daughter-in-law to vacate within 60 days, subject to:
- Rent: ₹2.5 lakhs per month with a 10% bi-annual increase.
- Security & Shifting Costs: Plaintiffs to pay deposit, brokerage, and shifting expenses.
- Advance Rent: Six months’ rent to be paid in advance.
- Lease: A registered lease deed for at least two years.
- Utilities: Plaintiffs to bear maintenance, electricity, and water costs.
The daughter-in-law was given 30 days to select an apartment in Delhi or Gurugram. Failing this, the plaintiffs could select one for her. Additionally, the son was barred from re-entering the property without the court’s permission, and the plaintiffs were restrained from creating third-party rights during the pendency of the suit.
Case Title:
Romy Mehra & Anr vs Gautam Mehra & Anr
CS(OS) 19/2024 & I.As. 9122/2024, 41474/2024, 49093-94/2024
Read Judgment:
Click Here to Read More Reports on Hindu Law