498a right of wife to reside at inlaws house

she has right to live with you only not inlaws or any other your relative. do not worry you dont required any judgement, it is very logical.

THE ALLEGATION U/S 498A IPC IS A CRIMINAL ACT FOR HARASSMENT AND CRUELTY .  HOW THE VICTIM CAN STAY WITH SUCH A CRIMINAL UNDER THE SAME ROOF? SHE MAY RESIDE SOME WHERE ELSE AT THE COST AND EXPENSES OF HER HUSBAND..

@ Biswanth Roy: Sir, the says she filed the 498a complaint because she was necked out of the inlaws place. Husband was not living with his parents when she filed the complaint. She will probably claim she filed the 498a because she was necked out the inlawys house in India where as the husband was still living in US at that time.

Is that valid ground for cruelty? 

It appears from the statement of facts narrated above the incident as complained of by your wife does not come under the purview of sec..498A IPC  in as much as the allegation does not fulfill the requirements of  clause (a) and clause (b) related to. THIS PROVISION OF LAW IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ALL TYPES OF HARASSMENT AND CRUELTY   Therefore, the application filed by your wife is liable to be dismissed with cost..

taking shelter of law is not a crime and no disability is cast upon the complainant.  She has a right of force entry into the house where she last resided with husband. 

She has right to stay with her husband only. if husband is agreeing she has to stay with her only.

1. Sec.498A ipc is not the provision to determine the question of right to residency. It is only for cruelty and harassment.

2.. Wife can legally claim to reside with the husband but not at the residence of father-in-law and mother in law by force or other wise.

I reprpdocie spome part of PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005¹

Section 2(c)

 (s) “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.

17. Right to reside in a shared household.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.

 (2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law.

1. Firstly husband the Respondent no. 1 living separately from his parents and resides at US permanently where wife complainant was also residing but suddenly left husband's residence voluntarily with the intent of residing with in-laws in India without any sanction and/or permission of her husband. More particularly against whom the complainant wife has allegation of Domestic Violence, Harassment and cruelty etc. If the facts are true and can be evidenced in that event I DIFFER THAT THE COMPLAINANT WIFE IS ELIGIBLE TO GET BENEFIT  OF SEC.2(c) and 17 (2) OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT,2005 (vide Preambles of the Act and intention of Legislature).

This is a case under the provisions of IPC u/s 498A and not under Domestic violence Act.  She abandoned her husband and her matrimonial house at abroad on her own without any valid reason but in order to avenge her husband and his parents close relatives through legal clutches, she has enacted a drama in the name of present complaint.    The very fact that she was residing with the husband in a foreign soil but she is up to the mischief of taking revenge against her in laws can be established before the high court where the quash petition is pending, the concrete evidences in this regard may be submitted to the court to prove the case.  Moreover her claim that she was necked out of the house, even if she is insisting it to be a cruel act, it can be convinced to the court that it was she who had trespassed into somebody's property with some ulterior motive, that way,even if the quash petition is not considered by high court,you can challenge the case easily in the lower court.

The right of residence is from the husband only, there are lot of judgments in this regard.

Batra Vs Batra is the most cited one. There are many others also, which say that if the husband or in-laws are ready to pay the rent, the wife can not claim Right to Residence in a particular property not belonging to the husband. Eveneet Kaur judgment of Delhi HC is in the same regard.

Hence you should not be unduly worried about her forced entry in your parents house. Also, your parents, if so desire can seek permanent injunction against your wife from entering their house/ premises.