The High Court of Delhi, in a significant ruling on the competing rights of senior citizens and a daughter-in-law, has held that a civil court has the jurisdiction to grant an interim mandatory injunction for the eviction of a daughter-in-law from a shared household. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed the daughter-in-law to vacate the suit property owned by her mother-in-law, contingent upon the in-laws providing suitable alternate rental accommodation. The court’s decision came in an interim application within a suit filed by the elderly parents-in-law seeking to evict their son and daughter-in-law due to severe marital discord and a resulting “toxic living environment.”
Background of the Case
The plaintiffs, a 68-year-old mother-in-law and her 70-year-old husband, filed a suit seeking the eviction of their son (Defendant No. 1) and his wife, the daughter-in-law (Defendant No. 2), from their self-acquired property in Satbari, Chhatarpur, New Delhi. The plaintiffs stated that the mother-in-law is the exclusive owner of the property, having acquired it via a registered sale deed in 2005.
The son and daughter-in-law were married on March 3, 2009, and had resided in the suit property with the plaintiffs since then. However, severe marital discord arose in 2023, leading the son to file for divorce on May 8, 2023. The situation escalated with multiple police complaints and legal proceedings. The daughter-in-law filed an FIR against the plaintiffs, her husband, and other family members under Sections 498-A, 406, and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code. She also initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) and obtained an ex-parte interim order restraining her dispossession from the suit property.
The plaintiffs alleged that the “continuous disruptive and hostile conduct of the defendants” had made it impossible for them to live peacefully in their own home. They cited the deteriorating health of the father-in-law, who suffers from severe Parkinson’s disease, which was allegedly worsened by the constant stress and disturbances. The son had already vacated the property on December 29, 2023.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiffs’ Submissions:
- The plaintiffs, as the rightful owners, are entitled to seek possession and live peacefully in their own home, especially in their advanced age.
- The daughter-in-law’s conduct, including filing false criminal complaints, verbal abuse, physical violence, and creating disturbances, has made cohabitation untenable.
- A police status report, ordered by the court, corroborated the plaintiffs’ claims, with the daughter-in-law admitting to acts of vandalism, such as breaking vases, though she claimed she was provoked.
- The plaintiffs offered to provide and pay for a suitable alternate accommodation for the daughter-in-law, with a monthly rent of ₹1.5 lakhs, similar to where their son resides.
Defendant No. 2’s Submissions:
- The suit was collusive between the plaintiffs and their son, designed to unlawfully dispossess her from her matrimonial home.
- The civil court’s jurisdiction was barred by the Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
- The suit property is a “shared household” under the PWDV Act, and she has a right to reside there, protected by an order from the Mahila Court.
- Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, it was argued that eviction cannot be directed summarily at an interim stage without a full trial to adjudicate the competing rights.
- Given the large size of the property (a 3-acre farmhouse), she could continue to reside on the first floor using a separate entrance without interacting with the plaintiffs.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora conducted a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and precedents to balance the competing rights of the parties.
On Maintainability of the Suit: The court rejected the defendant’s objection to the suit’s maintainability. Citing Satish Chandra Ahuja (Supra), the court affirmed that the institution of a civil suit by the property owner for eviction is a valid “procedure established by law” as contemplated under Section 17(2) of the PWDV Act. The court held, “the expression ‘save in accordance with the procedure established by law’, in Section 17(2) of the Act, 2005 contemplates the proceedings in court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, suit for mandatory and permanent injunction/eviction or possession by the owner of the property is maintainable before a Competent Court.”
On Power to Grant Interim Injunction: The court established its power to grant an interim mandatory injunction. It noted that Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act allows a Magistrate to direct a respondent to secure alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person. The court found that a civil court could similarly pass such an order. It heavily relied on the directions in the High Court’s decision in Ambika Jain v. Ram Prakash Sharma, which were specifically approved by the Supreme Court in Satish Chandra Ahuja (Supra). These directions empower a trial court to pass interim orders directing a daughter-in-law to vacate the suit premises, subject to the provision of suitable alternate accommodation.
On the Merits of the Injunction: The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a strong case for interim relief. It observed that the relationship between the parties had irretrievably broken down, leading to a “toxic living environment,” a conclusion supported by a counsellor’s report. The court noted:
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the admitted facts on record show that the atmosphere of the suit property is not congenial for peaceful living either for the plaintiffs or the defendant no. 2… The bitterness between the plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant no. 2 are admitted and compelling them to live together in the suit property is not in interest of either party.”
The court was not persuaded by the defendant’s argument that she wished to remain because the home was “lavish and palatial,” stating, “An ordinary prudent person would prefer to live independently, in a separate household away from the disputes and such relatives so as to live a peaceful life.” It concluded that separating the parties was in the best interest of everyone involved, including the minor children.
Final Decision and Directions
The High Court allowed the plaintiffs’ application and granted an interim mandatory injunction, directing Defendant No. 2 to vacate the suit property within 60 days. The order is subject to the plaintiffs providing alternate accommodation on the following terms:
- Rent: A monthly rental of ₹2.50 lakhs, with a 10% bi-annual increase.
- Deposits and Charges: The plaintiffs shall pay the security deposit, brokerage charges, and costs of shifting.
- Advance Rent: An advance rent for six months is to be deposited with the daughter-in-law.
- Lease: A registered lease deed for a minimum of two years must be executed.
- Utilities: The plaintiffs will bear maintenance, electricity, and water charges on an actual basis.
The daughter-in-law was given 30 days to select an apartment of her choice in Delhi or Gurugram. If she fails to do so, the plaintiffs are at liberty to select one for her.
The court further directed that the plaintiffs’ son (Defendant No. 1) shall not shift back into the suit property without the court’s permission and that the plaintiffs shall not create any third-party rights in the property during the suit’s pendency. The arrangement is to continue during the subsistence of the matrimonial relationship between the defendants.
