Delhi High Court: Chandra Dhari Singh, J., addressed a matter wherein the right of residence was claimed by the wife.

In the present matter, marriage between respondent 1 and the son of the petitioners was solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals and petitioner 1 (since deceased) and petitioner 2 are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the respondent.

Petitioner 1 has been represented by her legal representatives as petitioner 2(a), (b) and (c).

Between the respondent and her in-laws was cordial in the beginning and eventually it started to deteriorate with time. Further, the respondent left her matrimonial home and consequently more than 50 cases, both civil and criminal were filed by the parties.

In one of the cases, the respondent claimed the right of residence.

Aggrieved by the order of Metropolitan Magistrate that had entitled the right to residence, petitioner filed the criminal appeal.

Appellate Court considered the facts and circumstances and upheld the order of Metropolitan Magistrate observing that the respondent had been living in the said premises since her marriage and her husband was the 50% shareholder to the house which gave her the right to continue to live there.

In the present petition, order of the Appellate Court has been impugned.

Analysis, Law and Decision

The existence of the strained relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent has been well established by the fact that there are more than about 60 criminal and civil cases pending between the parties.

High Court found that the decision of Metropolitan Magistrate was in consonance with the findings of the Supreme Court in SR Batra v. Tarun Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169,  as well as the fact that the respondent had an emotional attachment to the house given that she had lived there for over 20 years of her married life and even the Appellate Court was right in upholding the same while passing the impugned Order.

Therefore, the Appellate Court rightly appreciated that the respondent has the right to live at her husband’s co-owned property.

In view of the above, the petition was dismissed.[Om Prakash Gupta v. Anjani Gupta, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 701, decided on 8-3-2022]

Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioners: Anurag Jain, Advocate

For the Respondents: Arvind Varma, Sr. Advocate with Abhishek Chhabra, Advocate for R-1 along with R-1 in person

Raghuvinder Varma, APP for R-2/State

Must Watch

SCC Blog Guidelines

Justice BV Nagarathna

call recording evidence in court


Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.