Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 13

Raj Mohan Singh, J
Swati – Appellant
Versus
Shakuntala – Respondent
CR No. 2230 of 2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohan Singla

A daughter-in-law cannot claim a right of residence in a self-acquired property belonging exclusively to her parents-in-law under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as such property does not constitute a 'shared household'.

Headnote:(A) Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2(s) and 17 - Right of residence - Shared household - Whether a daughter-in-law has a right of residence in property exclusively owned by parents-in-law - Court held that the daughter-in-law cannot claim a right of residence in a self-acquired house owned by the mother-in-law, as such premise does not qualify as a 'shared household' under the Act. (Paras 44, 47, 48)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner (daughter-in-law) challenged an order of the lower appellate court that restrained her from entering the matrimonial home. The respondent (mother-in-law) claimed ownership of the property via a registered sale deed and sought an interim injunction to prevent the petitioner from dispossessing her. The petitioner contended that her matrimonial dispute and previous residence made the property a 'shared household'.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the property is the self-acquired property of the mother-in-law. Relying on settled law, it concluded that the right of residence under Section 17 of the Act is restricted to a 'shared household', which must belong to, or be rented by, the husband or the joint family. It was held that the petitioner has no legal right to reside in the self-acquired property of her parents-in-law.

Issues: The primary issue was whether a property owned exclusively by the mother-in-law constitutes a 'shared household' under the Domestic Violence Act, thereby granting the daughter-in-law a right of residence.

Ratio Decidendi: A 'shared household' is defined by the legal interest of the husband in the property. Where the property is the absolute self-acquired property of the parents-in-law, it cannot be considered a 'shared household' merely by virtue of past residence, and the wife cannot claim a right to residence against the owner's wishes.

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

CR No. 2230 of 2020

-1-

112

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR No. 2230 of 2020

Date of Decision: 24.09.2020

Swati

-Petitioner

Shakuntala

-Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:

Mr. Mohan Singla, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.

The case has been taken up for hearing through

video-conferencing.

Petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.08.2020

passed by Additional District Judge, Sonipat vide which the

petitioner was restrained from entering in the matrimonial

home.

Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit along with an

application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151

CPC for grant of interim injunction against the defendant-

present petitioner.

Plaintiff-respondent has averred that the defendant

has threatened to dis-possess the plaintiff and her husband

JYOTI YADAV

2020.09.24 17:36

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No. 2230 of 2020

-2-

from the suit property. Plaintiff-respondent is the owner of the

suit property on the strength of registered sale deed dated

11.01.2017. Parties are involved in different criminal cases.

Marriage of the defendant-petitioner was solemnized

with the son of the respondent on 30.04.2012. Petitioner has

two children, but she is having matrimonial dispute with her

husband i.e. son of the plaintiff-respondent. Plaintiff-respondent

has pleaded that the defendant-petitioner has threatened to

commit suicide and implicate the plaintiff-respondent and her

family members in several false cases.

The trial Court vide order dated 04.07.2020

dismissed the application for interim injunction by observing that

the house is a shared house under the Domestic Violence Act

and the defendant-petitioner cannot be forcibly evicted from the

same as her belongings are still lying there.

Feeling aggrieved against the order dated

04.07.2020 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Sonipat, plaintiff-respondent filed a civil miscellaneous appeal

before the Additional District Judge, Sonipat.

The lower Appellate Court took cognizance of the

issue on the strength of case law viz Krishan Kumar vs

Navneet, (2018) 2 RCR (Criminal) 219, Sunita vs Sat Narain,

(2017) AIR (Punjab) 220, S.R. Batra and another vs Smt.

JYOTI YADAV

2020.09.24 17:36

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No. 2230 of 2020

-3-

Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169, Sardara Ram vs Paramjit

Kaur, (2018) 5 RCR (Criminal) 973 and Varinder Kaur vs

Jitender Kumar, (2016) 4 RCR (Criminal) 861.

Evidently, the petitioner is the owner of the suit

property having purchased the same vide registered sale deed

dated 11.01.2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the

documents viz phone bills, tax receipts of Municipal

Corporation, documents pertaining to loan of DHFL etc. to

contend that the property is in the name of husband of the

petitioner. In the criminal case, a compromise was effected on

29.02.2020 in which plaintiff and her family members agreed

that the defendant along with her husband and children would

live on the first floor of the suit property, but on 01.03.2020, the

defendant was abused and mis-behaved by the plaintiff and

family members for which a complaint was made to the police.

Thereafter, on 04.03.2020, defendant went to her parental

house.

Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed the house

to be a shared house. The controversy in respect of self-

acquired property owned by parents-in-law has been settled by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.R. Batra and another vs Smt.

Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169.

JYOTI YADAV

2020.09.24 17:36

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No. 2230 of 2020

-4-

Husband of the petitioner is still alive. He has not

been arrayed as party respondent in the present case.

Allegations of the petitioner in respect of phone bills, tax

receip

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 13

Raj Mohan Singh, JSwati – AppellantVersusShakuntala – RespondentCR No. 2230 of 2020

A daughter-in-law cannot claim a right of residence in a self-acquired property belonging exclusively to her parents-in-law under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as such property does not constitute a 'shared household'.

Cases Referred (2)

Raj Mohan Singh, J
Swati – Appellant
Versus
Shakuntala – Respondent
CR No. 2230 of 2020