Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, upheld the eviction of a husband from the shared household jointly owned by his mother-in-law and father-in-law. The Court dismissed the husband’s challenge to the eviction order passed under the Domestic Violence Act, observing that “when a man marries, he does not acquire a legal right to live in his in-laws’ house without their consent.” The Court held that the Trial Court’s direction requiring the husband to vacate the shared premises was fully justified in the facts of the case.
Facts
The matter pertained to a marital dispute between the estranged couple, with pending litigation under the Domestic Violence Act, including the wife’s application under Section 12 seeking protection orders. During the proceedings, the mother-in-law and father-in-law (respondents in the present petition) approached the Trial Court contending that the husband was creating a hostile environment in their household, despite having no ownership or legal right in the premises.
The mother-in-law and father-in-law stated that the property belonged to them, and was never intended to be a shared household permanently occupied by the son-in-law. They asserted that the presence of the son-in-law, amid matrimonial disputes with their daughter, created a tense and volatile atmosphere in the household. They sought his eviction by filing an application under Section 19(1)(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, read with Section 23 for interim relief.
The Metropolitan Magistrate, after hearing all parties, passed an eviction order against the husband. Aggrieved by this order, the husband filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was also dismissed. He thereafter invoked Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court challenging the eviction on the ground that the house constituted a “shared household,” entitling him to reside there.
Issues
- Whether the house owned by the wife’s parents could be treated as a “shared household” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act?
- Whether the Trial Court rightly exercised its power under Section 19(1)(b) and Section 23 of the Act to evict the husband from such premises?
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court under Article 227 of the Constitution?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner-husband contended that the premises in question constituted a shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. He argued that he and his wife had been residing there since marriage, and therefore, he had a right to reside in the said premises. He further argued that his eviction would render him homeless and cause undue hardship, especially since no alternative arrangement had been made for his residence. He alleged that the eviction proceedings were initiated solely to harass him and were devoid of bona fide intent.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, namely the wife’s parents, countered that the house belonged to them, and was never gifted, transferred, or otherwise designated for exclusive or permanent use by the petitioner. They argued that the petitioner’s continued residence in their house was not only unauthorized but also creating a toxic and unsafe environment for the household, particularly for their daughter, in light of the strained matrimonial relationship. They asserted their right to peaceful possession and control over their property and highlighted that the Domestic Violence Act, while protective in nature, cannot be misused to undermine the rights of innocent cohabitants or owners.
Analysis of the Law
The Court extensively considered the legal definition of “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It observed that the term must be construed in light of the facts of each case. The Court emphasized that mere residence in a premises cannot create a perpetual right of occupation unless there is legal ownership, tenancy, or express consent by the rightful owner.
Section 19(1)(b) empowers the Court to pass a residence order directing any person to vacate the shared household in the interest of the aggrieved person. Section 23 allows for interim relief in urgent cases. The Court held that the Trial Court was correct in invoking these provisions to safeguard the interests of the wife and her family members.
Precedent Analysis
- S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169 – The Supreme Court held that the wife has no right to reside in the property of her in-laws unless it is jointly owned or rented by the husband.
- Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414 – The Supreme Court expanded the scope of “shared household” but emphasized the need for balancing rights of owners and the aggrieved party.
The High Court applied the above precedents to reiterate that neither the husband nor the wife can claim an enforceable legal right in the house of in-laws absent ownership or tenancy rights.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted that the house in question was neither owned by the husband nor rented in his name. The records showed that the property belonged solely to the wife’s parents. The petitioner had not demonstrated any legal or equitable interest in the premises. The Court emphasized that “no person can claim a legal entitlement to reside in another’s home indefinitely, especially where the presence of such person becomes a source of tension and harassment.”
The Court found that the Trial Court had rightly concluded that the petitioner’s presence was causing mental agony and strain to the respondents, particularly the wife. Considering the fragile matrimonial relationship and the need to restore peace in the household, the Court declined to interfere with the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the courts below.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the eviction of the husband from the house owned by the wife’s parents. It held that the protection of shared household under the Domestic Violence Act cannot be extended to override property rights or to enable harassment by one party in the guise of matrimonial residence. The Court reiterated that Article 227 jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint and not as a forum for re-evaluation of concurrent factual findings.
Implications
This judgment clarifies that the “shared household” concept under the Domestic Violence Act does not vest absolute rights in favor of either spouse in a matrimonial dispute, particularly where third-party property rights are involved. It strikes a balance between protecting victims of domestic violence and upholding ownership rights of non-offending parties. The ruling discourages misuse of protective legislation for continuing residence in in-laws’ homes against their will.
Referred Cases and Their Role
- S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra – Cited for the proposition that in-laws’ homes are not automatically shared households unless legally owned or rented by the husband.
- Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja – Referred to delineate the boundaries of shared household and the circumstances under which courts may grant or deny residence rights.
FAQs
1. Can a husband claim right to live in his in-laws’ house after a marital dispute?
No. The Delhi High Court held that a man does not acquire a legal right to live in his in-laws’ house without their consent or any legal title to the property.
2. Does the Domestic Violence Act allow eviction of a family member?
Yes. Under Section 19(1)(b) read with Section 23, courts can pass interim orders for eviction of any person from a shared household to protect the aggrieved party.
3. What is the scope of “shared household” under the Domestic Violence Act?
A shared household must either be owned or rented by the aggrieved person or the respondent, or jointly occupied. Mere residence without ownership or tenancy does not create an enforceable right.
