Daughter-in-law has no independent right over mother-in-law’s self-acquired house: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that a daughter-in-law cannot assert any independent right to continue occupying her mother-in-law’s self-acquired property after termination of the rights vested with her husband.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the verdict on a plea filed by a daughter-in-law challenging the decision of a civil court to evict her from her mother-in-law‘s self-acquired property.

“Any right of residence is against the husband and not against the mother-in-law," the Court said.

The case involved a couple who married in 2003. After marriage, she along with her husband initially resided with her mother-in-law but due to family disputes, they moved out.

In 2014, they moved back with the mother-in-law at her self-acquired property. She (mother-in-law) entered into a license arrangement with her son through a rent agreement of ₹3,000 per month.

But due to non-payment of the rent amount, she subsequently formally excluded her son from her property in 2017. However, the daughter-in-law and her child continued residing at the property.

The mother-in-law later instituted a civil suit to secure permanent injunction to restrain the couple from creating any third-party rights in the property. 

In 2019, a decree was passed in her (mother-in-law's) favour in respect of the property. The daughter-in-law then moved the High Court seeking directions to set aside the order. She submitted that she has the right to reside in the matrimonial household even if it is owned by the mother-in-law.

In the judgment, the Court observed that the mother-in-law’s property was not a ‘shared household’ with the married couple and that she had terminated the license she had executed in favour of her son.

The Court observed that once the license given to the son was terminated, the daughter-in-law was left with no right, title or interest in the property.

The wife’s statutory protections under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, can be claimed against her husband and not the mother-in-law, the Court stated.

“Her rights and obligations shall not be higher or larger than those of the tenant himself. Herein, once the license of the husband itself has been terminated, no better protection can be accorded to the Appellant,” the Bench said.

Therefore, the Court dismissed the daughter-in-law’s plea.

Advocate Charu Ambwani appeared for the daughter-in-law.

Advocates Saurabh Agarwal, Manuj Kaushik and Karan Ahuja appeared for mother-in-law.