Back
P&H High Court: Can't Be Used To Evict Daughter-In-Law From
The has firmly ruled that the , , cannot be weaponized to evict an estranged daughter-in-law from the . A division bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Rajesh Gaur dismissed a filed by a mother-in-law, Anuradha Bansal, who sought to oust her daughter-in-law (respondent No.3) from a residential property by invoking the .
A Case of Marital Discord Masquerading As Senior Welfare
The dispute arose from a strained marital relationship between the appellant's son (respondent No.4) and his wife (respondent No.3). After the death of her husband, the appellant claimed absolute ownership of the house, alleging that her sons had been paying rent to her, as reflected in income tax returns. She contended that when her younger son stopped paying rent and vacated the premises, his wife began harassing her. Consequently, she approached the seeking the daughter-in-law's .
However, the Single Judge of the High Court, who first heard the matter, saw through the real intent. It found that the application before the was nothing but a defense mechanism crafted by the son to counter separate proceedings his estranged wife had initiated under the same Act. The Single Judge dismissed the , holding that the was being misused to settle personal matrimonial scores.
Appeal and Arguments: "No Independent Right" Claim Fails
In the appeal, counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that the daughter-in-law had no pre-existing or independent right in the property and could reside only with the appellant's permission. They urged that the Single Judge erred in concluding that the proceedings were engineered by the son to aid his matrimonial defense.
The division bench, after hearing counsel and examining the record, found no merit in these submissions.
Legal Analysis: The Act Cannot Be a Tool for Property or Matrimonial Disputes
The bench underscored the fundamental purpose of the —to secure the welfare of parents and senior citizens—and cautioned against its misuse. Relying on the Supreme Court's landmark decision in , the court reiterated that an estranged daughter-in-law possesses a in the .
The court noted several telling circumstances: the plea regarding non-payment of rent by the son was never raised before the nor substantiated in the writ court; the appellant chose to proceed only against her younger son and his wife, taking no action against her elder son who also held an equal share in the property. These facts reinforced the Single Judge's inference that the true purpose of the proceedings was to set up a defense for the son in the ongoing .
"The underlying objective of the is to uphold the obligation of children and relatives to provide for senior citizens, but the provisions of the statute cannot be pressed into service for the adjudication of matrimonial or property disputes. They cannot be used to evict an estranged daughter-in-law, who otherwise possesses a in the ..."
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
On the misuse of the Act: The court observed that the application was preferred
"to set up a defense, which her son – respondent No. 4 intends to take in the proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 under the ."
-
On the selective targeting of parties: The property had devolved equally upon the appellant and both her sons, yet the appellant chose to proceed only against the younger son and his wife, a
"circumstance further reinforces the inference drawn by the learned Single Judge as to the real purpose behind the proceedings."
-
On the overarching principle: The court emphasized that the Act cannot be
"pressed into service for the adjudication of matrimonial or property disputes."
The Verdict: Appeal Dismissed, No Costs Despite Deserving of Heavy Costs
The division bench concluded that the lacked merit and was "liable to be dismissed." While the court noted that the appeal deserved dismissal with heavy costs, it refrained from imposing such costs in view of the appellant's advanced age.
The ruling sends a clear message: the is a welfare legislation to protect the elderly, not a weapon to evict family members in the throes of matrimonial discord. Daughter-in laws who have a in the cannot be ousted under the guise of maintenance of senior citizens.
