Conflicts are very common in any household. But sometimes the matter escalates so much that the matter reaches the police station and the court. Hearing one such case, Justice Yogesh Khanna of the Delhi High Court delivered an important judgment. The court, while giving its verdict, said that any fighting daughter-in-law has no right to live in a joint family and in such a situation the property owner can evict her from the house. Referring to the peaceful life for elderly parents, the High Court said that if the daughter-in-law is not ready to give up the habit of daily chik-chik, then she can be evicted from the house.
However, on behalf of the court, the judge also said that in such a situation, even though one’s daughter-in-law can be evicted, some alternative accommodation will have to be provided till the marriage continues. In his judgment, the judge said, “I am of the view that since there is a strained relationship between the two parties, it would not be appropriate for the aged mother-in-law to live with the petitioner at the last stage of life.” Therefore, it would be appropriate that the petitioner be provided with an alternative accommodation under Section 19(1)(AF) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In this case, a complaint was also filed by the husband against the wife, who lives separately in a rented house and has not made any claim on the property concerned.
Let us tell you about the matter that a mother-in-law had become troubled by the daily quarrels of her son and daughter-in-law. Troubled by fighting, the son left the house after some time and started living in a rented house, but the daughter-in-law remained with her elderly mother-in-law. Mother-in-law wanted to take the daughter-in-law out of the house while she wanted to stay in the house. For this the father-in-law also filed a petition in the court. The woman’s father-in-law had filed a suit for possession on this ground before the trial court in 2016. Hearing on which the lower court had passed the order of possession in favor of the respondent and said that the petitioner has no right to stay there.