The right to reside in a household is not absolute for a daughter-in-law against the owner's will, emphasizing the need to respect ownership rights and permissions.

JUDGMENT :

SUDESH BANSAL, J.

1. In a Civil Suit for mandatory and permanent injunction bearing No.1702/2018 titled as ‘Danmal Jaat Versus Dr. Vinita Choudhary’ filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff, following decree has been passed against daughter-in-law, grand-son and married son of respondent No.1 (defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 respectively in the suit), vide judgment dated 29.05.2024 by the Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate (North), Jaipur Metro-II. The relevant portion of the said decree reads as under:-

^^Okknh nkuey tkV dh vkjs ls izfroknhx.k MkW0 fofurk pkS/kjh o vU; ds fo:) izLrqr fd;k x;k nkok ckcr vkKkRed ,oa LFkkbZ fu’ks/kkKk fuEukuqlkj Lohdkj fd;k tkdj bl izdkj ls fMØh fd;k tkrk gS fd&

1- okn i= dh en la[;k 1 esa of.kZr lEifRr ftls layXu uD'ks eas ihys jax ls n'kkZ;k x;k gS] dks oknh izfroknhx.k ls [kkyh djokdj dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA izfroknhx.k dks ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og fMØh dh fnukad ls nks ekg ds Hkhrj fooknxzLr ifjlj [kkyh dj dCtk oknh dks lqiqnZ djsA

2- izfroknhx.k dks bl vk'k; dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcaan fd;k tkrk gS fd izfroknhx.k okni= ds lkFk layXu uD'ks esa xqykch jax ls nf'kZr Hkwfe ij rksMQksM] fuekZ.k] vUrfjr rFkk ikuh&fctyh dk dusD'ku izkIr djus ls fu’ks) jgsA^^

2. There against defendant Nos.1 & 2 filed a First Appeal. The First Appeal was heard on merits and has been dismissed vide judgment dated 20.08.2025, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur Metro-II, affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2024. Hence, thereagainst, instant Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), has been filed by and on behalf of defendant Nos.1 & 2.

3. Admittedly, property in question i.e. Plot No.A-158, Garud Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur, is of absolute ownership of respondent No.1-plaintiff. The said plot was allotted to him by the Cooperative Society vide allotment letter dated 10.05.1987, thereafter, he got regularized the plot from Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the JDA’) by depositing regularization charges on 15.03.1995 and patta in his favour came to be issued by the JDA on 11.07.2012. Thus, there is no dispute about the fact that the property has been in sole ownership and possession of respondent No.1-plaintiff, wherein he was residing with his wife and son.

4. Admittedly, appellant No.1 got married with son of respondent No.1, namely, Satish Bijaraniya (respondent No.2 herein), on 05.12.2000 and started to live with her husband at first floor of the house of respondent No.1-plaintiff, obviously with the permission of respondent No.1-plaintiff. Later on, matrimonial discord accrued between appellant No.1 and her husband, to which her husband filed a Divorce Petition wherein an ex-parte divorce decree was passed on 13.04.2004, but later on, same came to be set aside and matrimonial dispute is pending between husband and wife.

5. It appears from the record that a Criminal Case on behest of the appellant for offences under Sections 498 -A and 406 of IPC was lodged in the month of May, 2005, but later on, such Criminal Case was resolved by way of compromise arrived at between the parties.

6. In the year 2011, appellant No.1 made a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and claimed her right of residence in the house of her father-in-law i.e. respondent No.1 and sought protection. In this complaint, vide order dated 05.07.2011, appellant’s right to continue living in the portion of house of re