#Law and Her

Grand Daughter-In-Law Has No Rights Over Grandmother-In-Law’s Property: Court

Special Cell Chennai women

While hearing a case filed by an 80-year-old woman, a Delhi court passed the judgment that a grand daughter-in-law has no right to live in the house of the grandmother-in-law without her permission. The decision also says that the grand daughter-in-law cannot even own a portion of property in her grandmother-in-law’s house.

The woman, who had filed the case, had alleged that her grandson’s wife is demanding a share in her property.

“The defendant being a grand daughter-in-law has no right to reside in the subject property which belongs to her grandmother-in-law without her consent as the said property is not covered by the definition of ‘shared household’,” said Civil Judge Nupur Gupta, reported DNA.

Gupta further explained the meaning of ‘shared household’, saying that it is a house belonging or taken on rent or a house owned by a joint family, of which the husband is an immediate member.

The complainant, Krishna Devi Sabherwal, had filed a case against her daughter-in-law, Swati, who was allegedly staying at her house with her husband (also the complainant’s grandson), Hitesh, after their marriage. Swati and Hitesh started having regular fights since the very beginning of their relationship. Sabherwal’s plea mentioned that after the fights, Swati along with her parents pressured her on two occasions to bequeath a portion of her property in her name.

The elderly lady pleaded that Swati and her family be restrained from entering the house since her grandson also does not stay there. The court also ruled that apart from having no right in the property, Swati and her family are restricted from 100 metres away from the property.

However, Swati had pleaded that she should get a share in the property because her husband was still residing there and that she had to leave the house because of the fights.

ALSO READ: A qualified working woman should not require maintenance after divorce: Delhi High Court

The court found that the husband is actually not a resident at the property and that further stretching the cause may cause disruption in her life. It also quoted Delhi High Court’s decision that the son does not have any rights over parent’s property 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’ up to 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’ up to the time his parents allow him,” the judge said. She added that the son can only live in the house of his parents if the house is ancestral and he has a share in it. Only then he has a right in the property and can enforce 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 observed.