Delhi High Court Clarifies: Wife's Right to Residence in In-Laws' Property Not Automatic

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has underscored that a wife cannot automatically claim a right to reside in a shared matrimonial home merely because she has lived there, particularly if the property is owned by her in-laws and was not purchased with joint family funds or contributions from her husband.

This judgment provides crucial clarity on the interpretation of 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) of 2005, especially in cases involving property disputes between spouses and in-laws.

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, presiding over the case of an estranged couple separated since 2011, stated that a wife's right to residence is not absolute in a property exclusively owned by her husband's parents.

The court observed that the property in question was owned by the husband's mother, having been willed to her by her late husband (the wife's father-in-law). In such circumstances, where the husband has no ownership stake in the property, the wife's claim to reside there solely based on past occupancy is not legally tenable.

The ruling draws a clear distinction, reiterating that a wife can only claim a right of residence if the house belongs to her husband, or if it is a joint family property where her husband holds a recognized share.

The PWDVA, while broadly defining 'shared household' to include a household where the aggrieved person has lived at any point in time with the respondent, cannot be exploited to grant a woman a permanent right to reside in a property where her husband lacks any ownership rights.

The court explicitly stated that the Domestic Violence Act aims to protect women from violence and provide timely remedies, but it was not enacted to allow a woman to perpetually reside in a home where her husband has no legal claim.

This interpretation aligns with previous Supreme Court judgments, such as S.R. Batra vs Taruna Batra, which have sought to define the scope of 'shared household' more precisely to prevent its misuse in property disputes.

Consequently, the Delhi High Court allowed the plea filed by the in-laws, paving the way for the eviction of the wife from the property.

While acknowledging a wife's undeniable right to maintenance and, if necessary, an alternative residence, the court firmly asserted that this right does not extend to claiming indefinite residence in a property that is solely owned by her in-laws. This judgment serves as an important precedent, highlighting the delicate balance between protecting women's rights and respecting the property rights of in-laws within the framework of Indian law.