The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ritu Chernalia vs Amar Chernalia & Ors. consisting of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that the right of the daughter-in-law in a shared household is not an indefeasible right and cannot be to the exclusion of the in-laws.
Facts:
The petitioner, her in-laws, and her husband were engaged in a matrimonial dispute. The petition was brought by the Petitioner to overturn the challenged order, which was issued by the former Divisional Commissioner of the GNCTD on March 31, 2023 (the “DC”). The elderly in-laws of the petitioner were respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
The husband of the petitioner is Respondent No. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an eviction petition with the District Magistrate (Southeast), GNCTD (the “DM”) under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The DM ruled on the petition in an order dated September 22, 2022, ordering the petitioner to leave the property at C-30, South Extension I, New Delhi, 110049 (hereinafter “Suit Property”). The Petitioner appealed the order, and the DC allowed the appeal. The eviction was cancelled but the DC allowed both the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 and 2 to stay in the property.
Contentions Made:
Petitioner: It was contended that the Petitioner was satisfied that the eviction order was cancelled, but she had a 9-year-old son and did not want her in-laws, with whom she had a bad relationship, to live in the same property as them. The Petitioner in court did not dispute that the property in question belongs to Respondent No.1 and 2. However, the Petitioner claimed that they were offered alternate homes but none were acceptable, including a neighbouring property arranged by the in-laws that had a shared corridor with other occupants.
Respondent: Respondents 1 and 2 were residing with their daughter who is married, causing them to feel ashamed. The petitioner had been offered other properties to consider but had declined each option.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench observed that in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to live in a shared household under Section 19 is not absolute, particularly when it pits a daughter-in-law against elderly parents-in-law. The court emphasized that senior citizens have the right to live peacefully without being affected by marital discord between their children and in-laws.
It opined that the concept of a “shared household” means that a daughter-in-law does not have an absolute right to live in the household without the in-laws. The idea that in-laws should not be allowed to live in their own property is incorrect. If a daughter-in-law claims the right to live in the shared household, she cannot argue that the in-laws should not live there too. If it is impossible for them to live together, the daughter-in-law may need to find alternative accommodation.
Judgment:
The Bench ordered that the Petitioner and her son will live in one room, while Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 will share another room. The Petitioner's grandson can use the third bedroom for studying, but everyone can access it. Everyone can use the shared areas of the property. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 can install cameras, and the Petitioner can see the footage. The parties must maintain peace and not argue. The locks will be changed, and everyone will have keys to their rooms.
Case: Ritu Chernalia vs Amar Chernalia & Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) 6986/2023 & CM APPLs. 27185-86/2023
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Prathiba M. Singh
For Petitioner: Mr. Harshvardhan Pandey, Mr. Shashank Agrawal & Mr. Rohish Arora, Adv.
For Respondents: Ms. Rosemarry Raju, Adv.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
