High Court noted that the demand of the daughter-in-law is against the law. It stated that her right to live in the common house is not absolute and she can’t have sole possession of the property.
The daughter-in-law had approached the court against an order of the Divisional Commissioner. The order had saved her from eviction, but she had to live with her in-laws in the same house.
The District Magistrate had passed the eviction order.
She had approached the court informing it that she was partially contended with the order of the divisional commissioner. She said that she was fine with the eviction being turned down but she was not willing to live with the in-laws in the house. She claimed to have sour relations with her in-laws. Though she agreed that the property is owned by her in-laws and that she was given an alternative accommodation. But she didn’t take possession of that as that was a shared house. The in-laws, on the other hand, contended that the daughter-in-law was given 5 options but she denied all of them.
Court noted that the daughter-in-law has possession of the property solely and that she doesn’t want to live in any other suggested property. Court ruled that she should have one room and the in-laws should live in another room of the 3BHK property. And that her son can use the third room for studying given that the in-laws can use it too.
Source: https://www.barandbench.com/news/daughter-in-laws-right-live-shared-household-cannot-exclusion-in-laws-delhi-high-court
