A daughter-in-law does not have a legal right to continue to occupy the premises belonging to her father-in-law, even though she was residing there as a daughter-in-law, once her husband has moved out and is residing separately.

( 1 ) THIS petition raises an interesting question regarding the rights, if any, of an estranged daughter-in-law, to continue to occupy the premises belonging to her father-in-law, even though her husband has moved out of the said premises and is residing separately.

( 2 ) THE respondent, one Mrs. Narender Kaur, was married to Dr. M. S. Chopra son of petitioners I and 2, on 31. 1. 1988. He is a Doctor employed with Delhi Administration. The respondent alongwith her husband, after the marriage resided at House No. A-2/b-180-A, MIG Flats, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, which belonged to her father-in-law, petitioner No. I herein. The respondent, who is a Home Science Teacher was initially posted in Ambala and used to come to Delhi every week and resided in the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the respondent was transferred to Faridabad, and she used to come to Delhi daily.

( 3 ) IT is the respondent s case that her husband at the instigation of the petitioner, left the matrimonial house and even filed a petition for divorce against the respondent. The petitioners namely father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in- law of the respondent, attempted to dispossess the respondent from the matrimonial home. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the petitioners from dispossessing her from the premises in suit and interfering with her possession. The respondent alleged cruelty on her by the in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry and forcible attempts to dispossess her. She says petitioners occupied one room on 10. 5. 1994 and attempted to dispossess her.

( 4 ) THE petitioners in the Trial Court denied that the respondent was in possession and stated that she had been staying as a daughter-in-law, allegations of cruelty were also denied. It was averred that respondent was neither having exclusive possession of any portion of the suit property nor had any legal right. The Trial Court disbelived the respondent on her claim that she was in possession of entire property, except the one room alleged to have been forcibly occupied by petitioners. The Trial Court held that the respondent s claim for living in the suit premises, was based on it being the matrimonial home. It might have been the matrimonial home, but did not remain so with the husband of the respondent, moving out and taking up residence in the Government flats at Model Town, Delhi. The Trial Court held that the respondent had no legal right to the property in suit and she could not forcibly live with her parents-in-law, when the husband was living separately. The Civil Judge held that the respondent did not have a prima fade case and prayer for injunction was declined.

( 5 ) THE respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Senior. Sub Judge. The Appellate Court held that the Trial Court fell in error in entering upon an elaborate enquiry, while all that was required to be seen at the initial stage, was whether triable issues were raised. On an appreciation of documents on record, the Appellate Court concluded that the respondent was in physical possession and her possession should be protected during the trial of the suit. The Appellate Court held that based on the pleadings, the case of the petitioner appeared to be that physical occupation of part of the premises by respondent was admitted, but the occupation was claimed as illegal. Further that the question whether it was the matrimonial home or not, need not be considered in depth at this stage. In any case respondent after marriage had lived in the premises in suit as matrimonial home. It was held that if interim injunction as sought, was declined, the respondent would be put to hardship and irreparable injury would be caused to her.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner assailed the order on the following grounds:-

(I) The respondent had no legal right, title or interest in the suit property. The respondent s occupation alongwith her husband i. e. petitioner s son after