Daughter-in-law has no right on in-laws (FIL or MIL) self acquired Property - Neetu Mittal Vs Kanta Mittal and Ors

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: September 05, 2008


Date of Order : September 30, 2008

CM(M) 105/2006

30.09.2008

Neetu Mittal                                                                   ...Petitioner
Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrasekhar, Adv.

Versus

Kanta Mittal and Ors.                                                   ...Respondents
Through: Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv. for R.1 and 2 Mr. Devendra Singh, Adv. for R.3

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not ? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest ? Yes. JUDGMENT:

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 4th January, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Senior Judge allowing an appeal of the respondent against order dated 24.5.2005 of Civil Judge dismissing an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

2. The respondents had filed a suit making petitioner, their son and in-laws of the son as defendants wherein they prayed for permanent injunction. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was made that the petitioner and other respondents be restrained from forcibly and illegally entering into their house
No. B-2/23, Phase-II, Ashok Vihar and from interfering with their peaceful living. The petitioner is wife of Sh. Vikas Mittal son of respondents, Smt. Kanta Mittal and Sh. Ram Kishan Mittal.

3. The learned Senior Civil Judge while allowing appeal observed that wife has a right to live in the matrimonial home after marriage but there was no specific definition of matrimonial home. However, matrimonial home was not just a building made of bricks and walls. It was a home/place comprising of sweetness of relations of family members and elders, full of blessing. In the matrimonial home, matrimonial rights and obligations are to be equally observed. Practically speaking, the residence of husband should be the home of the wife where both the spouses have equal right to reside.

4. The learned Senior Civil Jude found that in this case, the respondents were parents of Sh. Vikas Mittal and in-laws of Neetu Mittal (petitioner). They had separated from their son. The son had taken a flat in Rohini for his own residence and residence of his wife. The son and his wife had agreed to shift there on 10th May, 2005 under a compromise arrived at Police Station. However, the wife did not stay in the flat at Rohini. Her grievance was that flat was not habitable due to deficiency of fan, cooler, etc. Thereafter, she asserted that she had a right to live in her in-laws' house in Ashok Vihar and she wanted to forcibly live there which compelled respondents no. 1 and 2 to file the suit. The learned Senior Civil Judge found that the respondents were aged parents. They had shown by filing medical record that they were suffering from various ailments and at this age of their life they have a right to live peacefully at their home. Since the relations of petitioner were not cordial with them, there was every likelihood of breach of peace to the detriment to their mental and physical health. Due regards have to be given to their rights. It was a admitted fact that the respondents and petitioner could not live together under one roof with peace and harmony. The common use of dining and one kitchen would create further problems and a situation may come when parties may everyday land up at Police station or in the Court, fighting on minor issues.

5. Learned Sr. Civil Judge also observed that the respondents(parents) even apprehend danger to their lives and dignity, as per the complaint made by them to the Police. Under these circumstances, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and restrained the defendants (petitioner herein) from forcibly entering into their house and disturbing the peaceful possession of the respondents.

6. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner being wife of son of respondents no. 1 and 2 has a right to live in the matrimonial home and no injunction could legally have been issued by the learned Civil Judge. She referred to Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and argued that the right of women to live in the shared household was to be protected by every Court and the house of in-laws was a shared household and a matrimonial home and she had a right to live there.

7. In S.R. Batra vs. Taruna Batra AIR 2007 SC 1118, Supreme Court observed as under:

?16. There is no such law in India, like the British Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967 and in any case, the rights which may be available under any law can only be as against the husband and not against the father-in-law or mother-in-law.

17. Here, the house in question belongs to the mother-in-law of Smt. Taruna Batra and it does not belong to her husband Amit Batra. Hence, Smt. Taruna Batra cannot claim any right to live in the said house. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

27. Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batra has relied upon Section 19(1)(f) of the Act and claimed that she should be given an alternative accommodation. In our opinion, the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband's in-laws or other relatives.

28. As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a 'shared household' would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband Amit Batra is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant no.2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a 'shared household'.?

8. As observed by the Supreme Court, 'Matrimonial home' is not defined in any of the statutory provisions. However, phrase ?Matrimonial home? refers to the place which is dwelling house used by the parties, i.e., husband and wife or a place which was being used by husband and wife as the family residence. Matrimonial home is not necessarily the house of the parents of the husband. In fact the parents of the husband may allow him to live with them so long as their relations with the son (husband) are cordial and full of love and affection. But if the relations of the son or daughter-in-law with the parents of husband turn sour and are not cordial, the parents can turn them out of their house. The son can live in the house of parents as a matter of right only if the house is an ancestral house in which the son has a share and he can enforce the partition. Where the house is self-acquired house of the parents, son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents upto the time the parents allow. Merely because the parents have allowed him to live in the house so long as his relations with the parents were cordial, does not mean that the parents have to bear his burden throughout the life.

9. Once a person gains majority, he becomes independent and parents have no liability to maintain him. It is different thing that out of love and affection, the parents may continue to support him even when he becomes financially independent or continue to help him even after his marriage. This help and support of parents to the son is available only out of their love and affection and out of mutual trust and understanding. There is no legal liability on the parents to continue to support a dis-obedient son or a son which becomes liability on them or a son who dis-respects or dis-regards them or becomes a source of nuisance for them or trouble for them. The parents can always forsake such a son and daughter-in-law and tell them to leave their house and lead their own life and let them live in peace. It is because of love, affection, mutual trust, respect and support that members of a joint family gain from each other that the parents keep supporting their sons and families of sons. In turn, the parents get equal support, love, affection and care. Where this mutual relationship of love, care, trust and support goes, the parents cannot be forced to keep a son or daughter in law with them nor there is any statutory provision which compels parents to suffer because of the acts of residence and his son or daughter in law. A woman has her rights of maintenance against her husband or sons/daughters. She can assert her rights, if any, against the property of her husband, but she cannot thrust herself against the parents of her husband, nor can claim a right to live in the house of parents of her husband, against their consult and wishes.

10. I therefore consider that the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Jude granting injunction does not suffer from any illegality and the petition is hereby dismissed.

September 30, 2008 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. ak

Daughter-in-law has no right on in-laws (FIL or MIL) self acquired Property - S.R.Batra Vs Tarun Batra

                                                    Supreme Court of India
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5837 of 2006

PETITIONER:
S.R. Batra and Anr.

Vs

RESPONDENT:
Smt. Taruna Batra

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/12/2006
BENCH:

S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
JUDGMENT:

                                                                     JUDGMENT

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

Leave granted.

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 17.1.2005 in C.M.M. No. 1367 of 2004 and C.MM. No. 1420 of 2004.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The facts of the case are that respondent Smt. Taruna Batra was married to Amit Batra, son of the appellants, on 14.4.2000.

After the marriage respondent Taruna Batra started living with her husband Amit Batra in the house of the appellant no.2 in the second floor. It is not disputed that the said house which is at B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi belongs to the appellant no.2 and not to her son Amit Batra.

Amit Batra filed a divorce petition against his wife Taruna Batra, and it is alleged that as a counter blast to the divorce petition Smt. Taruna Batra filed an F.I.R. under Sections 406/498A/506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and got her father-in-law, mother-in-law, her husband and married sister-in-law arrested by the police and they were granted bail only after three days.

It is admitted that Smt. Taruna Batra had shifted to her parent's residence because of the dispute with her husband. She alleged that later on when she tried to enter the house of the appellant no.2 which is at property No. B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi she found the main entrance locked and hence she filed Suit No. 87/2003 for a mandatory injunction to enable her to enter the house. The case of the appellants was that before any order could be passed by the trial Judge on the suit filed by their daughter-in- law, Smt. Taruna Batra, along with her parents forcibly broke open the locks of the house at Ashok Vihar belonging to appellant No. 2, the mother- in-law of Smt. Taruna Batra. The appellants alleged that they have been terrorized by their daughter-in-law and for some time they had to stay in their office.

It is stated by the appellants that their son Amit Batra, husband of the respondent, had shifted to his own flat at Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad before the above litigation between the parties had started.

The learned trial Judge decided both the applications for temporary injunction filed in suit no.87/2003 by the parties by his order on 4.3.2003. He held that the petitioner was in possession of the second floor of the property and he granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the possession of Smt. Taruna Batra, respondent herein.

Against the aforesaid order the appellants filed an appeal before the Senior Civil Judge, Delhi who by his order dated 17.9.2004 held that Smt. Taruna Batra was not residing in the second floor of the premises in question. He also held that her husband Amit Batra was not living in the suit property and the matrimonial home could not be said to be a place where only wife was residing. He also held that Smt. Taruna Batra had no right to the properties other than that of her husband. Hence, he allowed the appeal and dismissed the temporary injunction application.

Aggrieved, Smt. Taruna Batra filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution which was disposed of by the impugned judgment. Hence, these appeals.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment held that the second floor of the property in question was the matrimonial home of Smt. Taruna Batra. He further held that even if her husband Amit Batra had shifted to Ghaziabad that would not make Ghaziabad the matrimonial home of Smt. Taruna Batra. The Learned Judge was of the view that mere change of the residence by the husband would not shift the matrimonial home from Ashok Vihar, particularly when the husband had filed a divorce petition against his wife. On this reasoning, the learned Judge of the High Court held that Smt. Taruna Batra was entitled to continue to reside in the second floor of B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi as that is her matrimonial home.

With respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court.

As held by this Court in B.R. Mehta v. Atma Devi and Ors., [1987] 4 SCC 183, whereas in England the rights of the spouses to the matrimonial home are governed by the Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967, no such right exists in India.

In the same decision it was observed "it may be that with change of situation and complex problems arising it is high time to give the wife or the husband a right of occupation in a truly matrimonial home, in case of the marriage breaking up or in case of strained relationship between the husband and the wife."

In our opinion, the above observation is merely an expression of hope and it does not lay down any law. It is only the legislature which can create a law and not the Court. The courts do not legislate, and whatever may be the personal view of a Judge, he cannot create or amend the law, and must maintain judicial restraint.

There is no such law in India, like the British Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967, and in any case, the rights which may be available under any law can only be as against the husband and not against the father-in-law or mother- in-law.

Here, the house in question belongs to the mother-in-law of Smt. Taruna Batra and it does not belong to her husband Amit Batra. Hence, Smt. Taruna Batra cannot claim any right to live in the said house.

Appellant No. 2, the mother-in-law of Smt. Taruna Batra has stated that she had taken a loan for acquiring the house and it is not a joint family property. We see no reason to disbelieve this statement.

Learned counsel for the respondent then relied upon the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. He stated that in view of the said Act respondent Smt. Taruna Batra cannot be dispossessed from the second floor of the property in question.

It may be noticed that the finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge that in fact Smt. Taruna Batra was not residing in the premises in question is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Hence, Smt. Taruna Batra cannot claim any injunction restraining the appellants from dispossessing her from the property in question for the simple reason that she was not in possession at all of the said property and hence the question of dispossession does not arise.

Apart from the above, we are of the opinion that the house in question cannot be said to be a `shared household' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

Section 2(s) states:

"`shared household` means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household".

Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batra has relied upon Sections 17 and 19(1) of the aforesaid Act, which state:

"17. (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

(2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law.

19. (1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order--

(a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household;

(b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household;

(c) restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides;

(d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared household or encumbering the same;

(e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or

(f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require:

Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman".

Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batgra stated that the definition of shared household includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship. He contended that since admittedly the respondent had lived in the property in question in the past, hence the said property is her shared household.

We cannot agree with this submission.

If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband's father, husband's paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, all these houses of the husband's relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist in living in the all these houses of her husband's relatives merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past. Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd.

It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted.

Learned counsel for the respondent Smt Taruna Batra has relied upon Section 19(1)(f) of the Act and claimed that she should be given an alternative accommodation. In our opinion, the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband's in-laws or other relatives.

As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a `shared household' would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband Amit Batra is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant No. 2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a `shared household'.

No doubt, the definition of `shared household' in Section 2(s) of the Act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society.

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the order of Senior Civil Judge dismissing the injunction application of Smt. Taruna Batra is upheld. No costs.

Contempt Petition (C) No. 38/2006

In view of the judgment given above, the contempt petition stands dismissed.

Daughter-in-law has no right on in-laws (FIL or MIL) self acquired Property - - Hemaxi Atul Joshi Vs Muktaben Karsandas Joshi & Anr

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 866 OF 2007
IN
S.C.SUIT NO. 3072 OF 2007
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1194 OF 2007

Smtl Hemaxi Atul Joshi                                             .........Appellant
(Org.Deft.No.1)

Vs.

Smt. Muktaben Karsandas Joshi & Anr.                      ......Respondents
(Resp.No.1 - org.Plff
& Resp.No.2 - org.
Defendant nO.2)

Mr.Jaydev Trivedi, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr.Nitin Vhatkar, Advocate, a/w G.S.Hiranandani,Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Prajit S.Manjarekar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J.
DATE: 5th December,2007.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Admittedly, the appellant, who is defendant No.1, was married to respondent No.2 sometime in the year 1996 and out of this wedlock, they have two children. After the marriage, they were living in the suit house with the other family  members. The relations between the husband and wife got strained and the Marriage Petition for divorce was filed by respondent No.2-husband against the present appellant before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. Plaintiff/Respondent No.1, who is the mother of respondent No.2 and mother-in-law of the appellant, claims that she is the exclusive owner of the suit house and her son and daughter-in-law after the marriage, were living with her in her house. However, in the year 2002, the appellant and respondent No.2 purchased another flat at a short distance from her house and intermittently they also used to live there. Respondent No.1 claims that she and other family members had noticed illicit relationship of the appellant with some other person. This was objected to by her and therefore relations were strained. According to her, the daughter-in-law went to her parents’ place at Surat in May 2007 after the Divorce Petition was filed. However, in the last week of May, 2007, she came back to Mumbai and forcibly entered into the plaintiff’s house and started harassing the plaintiff and her family members. She also abused the plaintiff in filthy language and assaulted her. In view of these circumstances, she filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from entering into and/or occupying and/or remaining in occupation of the suit premises belonging to her. She also took out a Notice of Motion seeking temporary injunction of the same nature. The application was opposed by the present appellant on the ground that the suit house is the matrimonial home and she is entitled to reside there in view of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in brief, “Domestic Violence Act”).

3. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court accepted the contention of the plaintiff and rejected the contention of the defendant No.1-appellant that it is a shared household for the appellant. The learned Judge held that the suit house being the exclusive property of the mother-in-law/plaintiff, the daughter-in-law cannot claim any legal right of residence. In the result, the Notice of Motion was allowed and the temporary injunction was granted against the defendant No.1-appellant. Hence, she has preferred the present Appeal.

4. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the impugned order, it becomes clear that the suit house was purchased by the plaintiff/mother-in-law sometime in 1975 and, admittedly, the suit house stands in her name alone. There is nothing to show that it is a joint family property of the plaintiff, her husband and the children. Admittedly, it is not the house belonging to the appellant or her husband. The learned trial Court relied upon an authority of the Supreme Court in S.R.Batra vs. Taruna Batra AIR 2007 SC 1118 wherein the

provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 came to be considered.

5. Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act provides protection of residence to the aggrieved person.
Section 19(a) reads as under :-
   “19. Residence orders (1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order -
(a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household;”

Under Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act, “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent”. . Section 2(q) defines “respondent” as any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act.

Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner. . Section 2(s) defines “shared household” as follows :-
     “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or  along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.”

5. The question is whether merely because the appellant/daughter-in-law was living along with husband in the household of her mother-in-law, she would get a legal right of residence in the house of mother-in-law. Admittedly, the appellant and her husband-respondent NO.2 had purchased another flat in December, 2002 jointly. It is not disputed that intermittently the husband and wife used to sleep and stay in that house. That house is at a walking distance of about 5 minutes from the suit house. The appellant can claim legal right in that house firstly, because it is the joint property of herself and her husband and secondly, because she was intermittently living or at least staying in that house along with her husband and children. As far as the suit house is concerned, it is not the property in which her husband has got any legal right and therefore she cannot claim that the suit house is the shared household within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act. After referring to the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and some case law, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of S.R.Batra vs. Taruna Batra, observed as follows in para
16 of the Judgment :-
        “16. There is no such law in India, like the British Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967, and in any case, the rights which may be available under any law can only be as against the husband and not against the father-in-law or mother-in-law.” From this, it is clear that the wife may have rights only against the husband and not against father-in-law or mother-in-law. Their Lordships further observed as follows :-
        “28. As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household and a ‘shared household’ would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant No.2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a ‘shared household’.

The facts in the case of S.R.Batra and the present matter are almost similar. Taking into consideration the legal position and the facts, the appellant cannot claim any legal right of residence in the house belonging to her mother-in-law. She can claim such right only in the house of her husband and incidentally in the present case, she and her husband jointly own another house at a short distance from the suit house. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court Judge was justified in passing the order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from entering into the suit house and causing interference in possession of her mother-in-law on the suit house.

6. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed.

7. As the Appeal itself is dismissed, the Civil

Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.

(J.H.BHATIA,J.