Negotiable Instruments: Exhaustive Coverage by Adv Roma Bhagat. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Now which is a married lady

Page no : 2


when the married lady leaves the matrimonial home once then why she wants to live there again and that too by making a forced entry through the court. The only reason for this is to harass the husband and the in-laws so that they bow to the money demands of the lady.

This is just a tactic to harass the inlaws and husband by living forcibly with them and that too under police protection so if they just say something or even not then create a scene for them.

The reasonng above may appear harsh but is the only truth behind securing such orders and all would agree. The explanation that you dont need property inheritance but only living rights dont justify the intentions that the lady have behind securing such orders.

when you leave the matrimonial home then why reenter forcibly. There is no case where a woman would leave her matrimonial home and dont have a place to live.

1 Like

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     23 November 2010

Mithilesh ji, I do not want to take up discussions on the lines that the aggrieved takes shelter int eh matrimonial house to harass the in laws.


But the intention of the Act is clear. In India, when a girl is married, she is considered an outsider for her parental family and belongs to her matrimonial home. And gone are the days when parents can take the burden of her care even after her marriage, may be because of rising cost of living or falling moral standards. Sometimes she may not have her parents living at that moment. The only intention of the legislature was to give protection to the woman who is harassed by making her live on streets not having any support for her. It is properly done by providing her residence orders to her in laws who have legal right to maintain her.

2 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     23 November 2010

Dear Admin,

My title for this thread was "Now which is a married lady's home?"

the word "home" has been deleted from title.So the title says"Now which is a married lady?"

Any person reading this title will think this thread is discussing about marital status;not matrimonial home.i request you to kindly add the word "home" to this title again.


Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     23 November 2010

" A single judge bench of Justice V.M. Kanade accepted their contention and stayed the order of the lower court saying it was difficult accept that a house owned by in-laws could be treated as a shared household."


- a correct decission.

where is the discripency?

for the purpose of shared household, the property should belong (ie, owenership of the property) to  the husband and not anybody else.

- otherwise a tenant's wife will file dv  suit against her husband and capture the property.



Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     23 November 2010

" she's asking for "right to live';not share"

-  who snatched her right to live?

under dv act shared household is in question, where her husband is owner of the property not a tenant of the said property.


whatever you explain if the lady leaves the house wilfully then why she wants to live in the inlaws house. One way you are asking for divorce other side asking for shared household right that would not give peace of mind to the lady nor the husband and inlaws as they would be seeing each other and there being no existence of relationship. So that would be living with the enemy!

Generally there are very few genuine cases where the lady would not have a house to live, majorly the contention behind this is to harass the inlaws to reach a early settlement.

Bhartiya No. 1 (Nationalist)     24 November 2010

There r so many husbands also who prepare ground for divorce, they sale their accommodation and shift to their other family member's or friends house or in rented house and their motive used to drive their wife out.

Husbands are not far behind in cheating and frauds and do so many things to harass and throw their wives in streets/roads. Just use them (wives) and throw them.

So, law must protect their right and interest and come to their aid.

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     24 November 2010

this is a v.silly argument that if the wife left her matrimonial home,she shd not think of returning................y??

is her matrimonial home some office where she worked as an employee,that once she resigns,she cant return?are her inlaws her bosses who recruited her here?

once she marries,it becomes her home...for example:if a daughter or son have a fight with parents and leave the home for some months,does it mean they can never return?


this attitude of indians  that the wife is from "another" family(an outsider) makes her also feel more attached to her maayka and parents post marriage also...she is unable to regard her sasural as her home,becoz she easily senses that she's regarded as an outsider who cant commit mistakes,which other family members can,4 which they'll be easily 4given also.

1 Like

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     24 November 2010

" this is a v.silly argument that if the wife left her matrimonial home,she shd not think of returning................y??is her matrimonial home some office where she worked as an employee,that once she resigns,she cant return?are her inlaws her bosses who recruited her here? '



Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     24 November 2010

" Husbands are not far behind in cheating and frauds and do so many things to harass and throw their wives in streets/roads. Just use them (wives) and throw them."


Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     24 November 2010

" this attitude of indians  that the wife is from "another" family(an outsider) makes her also feel more attached to her maayka and parents post marriage also..."


even if they have no case, they hire the others ( or neighbours) case for the greater interest of shouting and crying.

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     24 November 2010

i shall be grateful if someone posts here the above judgement of bombay high court,that a wife has no right to live in inlaws' owned house.


I got another ;


Daughter-In-Law has not right on her In-laws property


Date of Reserve: September 05, 2008
Date of Order : September 30, 2008

CM(M) 105/2006
Neetu Mittal ...Petitioner
Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrasekhar, Adv.


Kanta Mittal and Ors. ...Respondents
Through: Ms. Nandni Sahni, Adv. for R.1 and 2
Mr. Devendra Singh, Adv. for R.3


1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not ? Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest ? Yes.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 4th January, 2006
passed by the learned Additional Senior Judge allowing an appeal of the
respondent against order dated 24.5.2005 of Civil Judge dismissing an
application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
2. The respondents had filed a suit making petitioner, their son
and in-laws of the son as defendants wherein they prayed for permanent
injunction. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was made that the
petitioner and other respondents be restrained from forcibly and illegally
entering into their house No. B-2/23, Phase-II, Ashok Vihar and from interfering
with their peaceful living. The petitioner is wife of Sh. Vikas Mittal son of
respondents, Smt. Kanta Mittal and Sh. Ram Kishan Mittal.
3. The learned Senior Civil Judge while allowing appeal observed
that wife has a right to live in the matrimonial home after marriage but there
was no specific definition of matrimonial home. However, matrimonial home was
not just a building made of bricks and walls. It was a home/place comprising of
sweetness of relations of family members and elders, full of blessing. In the
matrimonial home, matrimonial rights and obligations are to be equally observed.
Practically speaking, the residence of husband should be the home of the wife
where both the spouses have equal right to reside.
4. The learned Senior Civil Jude found that in this case, the
respondents were parents of Sh. Vikas Mittal and in-laws of Neetu Mittal
(petitioner). They had separated from their son. The son had taken a flat in
Rohini for his own residence and residence of his wife. The son and his wife
had agreed to shift there on 10th May, 2005 under a compromise arrived at Police
Station. However, the wife did not stay in the flat at Rohini. Her grievance
was that flat was not habitable due to deficiency of fan, cooler, etc.

Thereafter, she asserted that she had a right to live in her in-laws' house in
Ashok Vihar and she wanted to forcibly live there which compelled respondents
no. 1 and 2 to file the suit. The learned Senior Civil Judge found that the
respondents were aged parents. They had shown by filing medical record that
they were suffering from various ailments and at this age of their life they
have a right to live peacefully at their home. Since the relations of
petitioner were not cordial with them, there was every likelihood of breach of
peace to the detriment to their mental and physical health. Due regards have to
be given to their rights. It was a admitted fact that the respondents and
petitioner could not live together under one roof with peace and harmony. The
common use of dining and one kitchen would create further problems and a
situation may come when parties may everyday land up at Police station or in the
Court, fighting on minor issues.
5. Learned Sr. Civil Judge also observed that the
respondents(parents) even apprehend danger to their lives and dignity, as per
the complaint made by them to the Police. Under these circumstances, the
learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
CPC and restrained the defendants (petitioner herein) from forcibly entering
into their house and disturbing the peaceful possession of the respondents.
6. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner being wife
of son of respondents no. 1 and 2 has a right to live in the matrimonial home
and no injunction could legally have been issued by the learned Civil Judge.
She referred to Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and argued
that the right of women to live in the shared household was to be protected by
every Court and the house of in-laws was a shared household and a matrimonial
home and she had a right to live there.
7. In S.R. Batra vs. Taruna Batra AIR 2007 SC 1118, Supreme Court
observed as under:
?16. There is no such law in India, like the British Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967
and in any case, the rights which may be available under any law can only be as
against the husband and not against the father-in-law or mother-in-law.

17. Here, the house in question belongs to the mother-in-law of Smt. Taruna
Batra and it does not belong to her husband Amit Batra. Hence, Smt. Taruna
Batra cannot claim any right to live in the said house.


27. Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batra has relied upon Section
19(1)(f) of the Act and claimed that she should be given an alternative
accommodation. In our opinion, the claim for alternative accommodation can only
be made against the husband and not against the husband's in-laws or other

28. As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the wife is only
entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a 'shared
household' would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the
husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is
a member. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit
Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which
the husband Amit Batra is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant
no.2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a 'shared household'.?

8. As observed by the Supreme Court, 'Matrimonial home' is not
defined in any of the statutory provisions. However, phrase ?Matrimonial home?
refers to the place which is dwelling house used by the parties, i.e., husband
and wife or a place which was being used by husband and wife as the family

residence. Matrimonial home is not necessarily the house of the parents of the
husband. In fact the parents of the husband may allow him to live with them so
long as their relations with the son (husband) are cordial and full of love and
affection. But if the relations of the son or daughter-in-law with the parents
of husband turn sour and are not cordial, the parents can turn them out of
their house. The son can live in the house of parents as a matter of right only
if the house is an ancestral house in which the son has a share and he can
enforce the partition. 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 in that house only at the mercy of his parents upto the time the
parents allow. 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 throughout the life.
9. Once a person gains majority, he becomes independent and parents
have no liability to maintain him. It is different thing that out of love and
affection, the parents may continue to support him even when he becomes
financially independent or continue to help him even after his marriage. This
help and support of parents to the son is available only out of their love and
affection and out of mutual trust and understanding. There is no legal
liability on the parents to continue to support a dis-obedient son or a son
which becomes liability on them or a son who dis-respects or dis-regards them or
becomes a source of nuisance for them or trouble for them. The parents can
always forsake such a son and daughter-in-law and tell them to leave their house
and lead their own life and let them live in peace. It is because of love,
affection, mutual trust, respect and support that members of a joint family gain
from each other that the parents keep supporting their sons and families of
sons. In turn, the parents get equal support, love, affection and care. Where
this mutual relationship of love, care, trust and support goes, the parents
cannot be forced to keep a son or daughter in law with them nor there is any
statutory provision which compels parents to suffer because of the acts of
residence and his son or daughter in law. A woman has her rights of maintenance
against her husband or sons/daughters. She can assert her rights, if any,
against the property of her husband, but she cannot thrust herself against the
parents of her husband, nor can claim a right to live in the house of parents of
her husband, against their consult and wishes.
10. I therefore consider that the order passed by the learned
Senior Civil Jude granting injunction does not suffer from any illegality and
the petition is hereby dismissed.


Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     24 November 2010

Thanks kushan..


But I am asking for the bombay high court judgement whose news article is posted by me in this thread.


i will be grateful if someone can post that judgement here


Aree aaj to itna khojte  khojte tak gaya kal ko milega to post karuga

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Recent Topics

View More

Related Threads