The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that a wife is entitled to reside in her shared household, even if her husband has been disowned by his parents. Justice Sanjeev Narula stated that a wife's residence in the house immediately after her marriage constitutes a "shared household" under the Domestic Violence Act, and she is entitled to reside there, regardless of the husband's subsequent disownment by his parents. The court emphasized that such a residence, where she lives with her husband and in-laws after marriage, establishes a domestic relationship, thus qualifying the premises as a shared household.
The ruling came while Justice Narula was dealing with a dispute between a daughter-in-law and her in-laws. The couple had married on November 14, 2010, and the wife began residing at the premises in question with her husband and in-laws immediately after. Due to marital differences, the couple moved to a rented accommodation in November 2011. The in-laws claimed they had disowned their son and disentitled him from all movable and immovable properties before the couple moved out. However, the wife disputed this, alleging that upon returning home, she found her husband and his parents removing her belongings to a rented room to dispossess her from the matrimonial home against her wishes.
Following this, the wife filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act against her husband and in-laws, claiming her right to reside in the shared household, specifically the ground floor of the property. The mother-in-law also filed a complaint under the same act, seeking protection against the wife and her family members, preventing them from alienating or disposing of any part of the property.
Justice Narula referenced Section 2(s) of the DV Act, stating that the wife's residence with her husband and in-laws immediately after the marriage establishes the premises as a household where she lived in a domestic relationship. Once this threshold is met, Section 17(1) of the DV Act grants her a right of residence, irrespective of title, and Section 17(2) forbids eviction except by due process. The court clarified that the husband moving out in 2011 or the parents-in-law disowning him does not negate the house's character as a shared household.
The trial court initially ruled that the daughter-in-law had a recognized right of residence in the shared household and could not be directed to vacate or pay occupation charges. Both the daughter-in-law and the in-laws filed appeals against this decision, which were dismissed by the sessions judge.
Upholding the orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court, Justice Narula affirmed that the premises in question qualified as a shared household, thereby attracting the wife's right of residence. The court also stated that the residence orders, including restraints against dispossession and alienation, fell well within jurisdiction and purpose. Justice Narula dismissed the in-laws' contention that the wife's possession of the property was merely notional or mala fide, deeming it a selective reliance on electricity bills.
It is important to note that the Delhi High Court has also stated that a wife's right to reside in a shared household is not unconditional, especially if she is gainfully employed. In a separate case, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ruled that a wife's right to reside in the shared household under the DV Act is not absolute and is subject to legal conditions, including eviction through due process and the provision of alternative accommodation or rent.
