Citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja, Justice Pratibha M Singh of the Delhi High Court delivered a significant ruling on Monday. The court emphasized that a daughter-in-law’s right to reside in a shared household is not an indefeasible entitlement, and importantly, it cannot be exercised at the expense of the in-laws.
In the case of Ritu Chernalia vs Amar Chernalia and Ors., the court rejected the petitioner’s argument that her in-laws should be prohibited from living in their own property. Justice Singh firmly stated that such a position contradicted the well-established understanding of the matter. The court’s decision marks a pivotal moment in defining the boundaries and nuances of a daughter-in-law’s rights within a shared household.
In a matrimonial dispute case, the Delhi High Court rendered a significant verdict, emphasizing that a daughter-in-law’s right in a shared household is not absolute and cannot disregard the presence of in-laws. The court firmly stated that the concept of a “shared household” clearly establishes that the daughter-in-law’s entitlement is not indefeasible and should not exclude the rights of the in-laws. The court deemed the petitioner’s argument, advocating that her in-laws be barred from residing in their own property, as wholly contradictory to the well-established understanding of the matter.
The court’s ruling came in response to a petition filed by a woman challenging a Divisional Commissioner’s order, which overturned her eviction but mandated that she cohabitate with her parents-in-law. The eviction order had been issued by a District Magistrate under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.
While the petitioner expressed her satisfaction with the eviction being set aside, she raised concerns about sharing a house with her in-laws due to the strained relationship, especially considering the presence of her 9-year-old son.
Delhi High Court Resolves Matrimonial Dispute Over Shared Household
During the proceedings, the woman involved in the matrimonial dispute did not contest the fact that the property belonged to her in-laws. She informed the court that she was offered alternative residences, but turned them down as they were shared accommodations as well.
The respondents, on the other hand, informed the court that they were currently residing with their married daughter, and the petitioner’s presence in their household was causing them embarrassment. They claimed that they had suggested five alternative options to the petitioner, all of which were rejected.
The court took note of the fact that the Divisional Commissioner had simply affirmed the respondents’ right to stay in the disputed property, given that they owned it. Furthermore, the court observed that the petitioner currently occupied the entire property and expressed unwillingness to relocate to any other premises.
Considering these circumstances, the court issued an order mandating that the petitioners and respondents each occupy separate bedrooms. Additionally, the order allowed the petitioner’s son to utilize a third bedroom for his studies, provided it remained accessible to all parties.
Consequently, the petition was disposed of by the court. Advocates Harshvardhan Pandey, Shashank Agrawal, and Rohish Arora represented the petitioners, while advocate Rosemarry Raju represented the respondents.
Written by – Sohini Chakraborty intern under LegalVidhiya
0 Comments