A grand daughter-in-law cannot stay in the house of her grand mother-in-law without her consent and neither can own a portion of it, a Delhi court has observed while deciding a case filed by an 80-year-old woman whose grandson's wife was demanding a part of the property.
"The defendant being a grand daughter-in-law has no right to reside in the subject property which belongs to her grand mother-in-law without her consent as the said property is not covered by the definition of 'shared household'," said Civil Judge Nupur Gupta.
Defining 'shared household', the Judge said that the place can mean a house belonging or taken on rent by the household or a house which belongs to a joint family of which the husband is a member.
The observation was made while deciding a case wherein an 80-year-old woman had moved to the court against her grand daughter-in-law who wanted a share in the property where she was staying with her husband, ie, complainant's grandson.
Krishna Devi Sabherwal's grandson Hitesh and his wife Swati were staying at their grandmother's house after marriage. But soon after the alliance, the couple started having regular fights. Following this spat, Swati and her family threatened Krishna Devi and demanded a portion of the property on more than two occasions.
The septuagenarian had demanded Swati and her family members should be restrained from entering the house since her grandson was also not staying at the property.
The court while denying the right for part of the property to Swati ruled that she, along with her family would not enter Krishna Devi's house thereby staying 100 metres away from it.
Swati, through her counsel, had contended that she should get a portion of the property because her husband was still residing at that place despite the fact that she had left the house following quarrels.
Appearing for Krishna Devi, her counsel showed the lease documents to ascertain that she was the "absolute owner" of the house.
The court found that Hitesh was not residing in the disputed property. It also said that since the complainant is a senior citizen, "it may cause trouble to plaintiff thereby causing irreparable losses to the plaintiff".
The court also reiterated the observation made by the Delhi High Court stating that the son has no legal right in his parents'house and can only live there at their mercy.
"A son has no legal right in the self-acquired house of his parents and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents' upto the time they allow him to stay," a Delhi court has said.
"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 there only at the mercy of his parents upto the time his parents allow him,"the judge said, adding that 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.
"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," the court added.
WHAT COURT SAID
- The observation was made while after an 80-year-old woman had moved the court.
- The woman had filed a case against her grand daugther-in-law who wanted a share in the property.
- The court denied the right for part of the property to the daughter in law.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}