Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by daughter in law (petitioner) challenging the impugned order dated 31-03-2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Govt of NCT of Delhi wherein the eviction order was set aside which was passed by the District Magistrate. The impugned order also permitted the in-laws (respondent 1 and 2) to live in the suit property along with the petitioner. Prathiba M Singh, J., held that the Divisional Commissioner has held that the in-laws have a right to stay in the suit property, which obviously cannot be questioned because the property belongs to them.
Respondent 1 and 2 are the petitioner’s in-laws, both senior citizens. Respondent 3 is the husband of the petitioner. The parents preferred an eviction petition before the District Magistrate, GNCTD under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The said petition was decided by the DM vide order dated 22-09-2022 by which the DM directed eviction of the petitioner from the property which is a 3 BHK in South Extension, New Delhi.
Placing reliance on Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414, the Court noted that the daughter-in-law, while claiming her right to live in her matrimonial home or shared household, cannot be seen to argue that the in-laws ought not to live with her in the shared household. If circumstances exist which demonstrate that they cannot live together, alternative accommodation must be explored for the daughter-in-law.
The Court further noted that the petitioner is currently in occupation of the entire property consisting of one floor and is not willing to consider shifting to any alternate premises, though the same is offered by in laws. Thus, the Court issued directions as follows:
(i) The Petitioner and her son shall occupy one room in the suit property. The respondent 1 and 2 together shall also occupy one bedroom.
(ii) The grandson (petitioner 2) shall be permitted to use the third bedroom for his studies, tuitions, etc., However, the said room shall be accessible to all the parties.
(iii) The common areas such as the kitchen, the drawing and the dining room and staircase, etc., shall be used by all the occupants.
(iv) The in laws are permitted to put up CCTV cameras and the recordings of the same shall be accessible to the petitioner.
[Ritu Chernalia v Amar Chernalia, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3102, decided on 22-05-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Harshvardhan Pandey, Mr. Shashank Agrawal & Mr. Rohish Arora, Advocates;
Ms. Rosemarry Raju, Advocate for the Respondent.
