Eviction of Daughter-in-Law from In-Laws’ Property through Civil Court — Justice After 8 Months of Legal Battle

Background: Senior Citizens Caught Between Civil and Domestic Violence Proceedings

Our clients, a senior couple aged 69 and 65, residing in West Delhi, approached our firm after suffering nearly two years of prolonged domestic and legal conflict with their daughter-in-law.

Despite being the absolute owners of their self-acquired property, they were living in constant fear and humiliation inside their own home.

The daughter-in-law had earlier obtained an interim protection order from the Mahila Court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, restraining her dispossession from the matrimonial house. At the same time, a Civil Suit for Mandatory and Permanent Injunction filed by our clients was already pending before the Civil Court for the past two years, seeking to protect their ownership rights and possession.

The elderly couple, both suffering from hypertension and arthritis, faced repeated verbal abuse, police calls, and neighbourhood embarrassment due to continuous altercations. They had reached a point where their health and dignity were severely compromised.

Our Legal Strategy: Application Under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act Filed Within the Civil Suit

Upon reviewing both the DV proceedings and the pending civil case, our legal team identified a strategic legal remedy:

We advised moving an application under Section 19(1)(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, within the pending Civil Suit itself, seeking directions for the daughter-in-law to be shifted to suitable alternative accommodation.

This approach was backed by the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja (2020 SCC OnLine SC 841), which recognised that civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction to grant reliefs under the DV Act and that in-laws, being respondents in DV complaints, are entitled to seek appropriate residence-related relief even before the civil court.

We drafted a comprehensive and well-supported application, combining civil and domestic violence jurisprudence to show that the daughter-in-law’s continued occupation of the in-laws’ property had become oppressive and unreasonable.

Documents and Evidence Presented Before the Court

To substantiate our plea, we submitted a detailed record of evidence, including:

1. Title Deeds and Sale Documents — establishing the property as the self-acquired ownership of the in-laws and not ancestral or jointly owned.
2. Medical Certificates — highlighting the deteriorating health and emotional stress of the elderly couple due to daily quarrels and hostile living conditions.
3. Copies of the DV Protection Order — showing that it only restrained dispossession but did not grant any ownership rights or tenancy status to the daughter-in-law.
4. Complaints and Counter-Complaints — from both parties, proving the relationship had become unmanageable and peace in the household was impossible.
5. Screenshots from MagicBricks and 99acres.com — providing market proof that alternative rental accommodation in the same locality was readily available and affordable.
6. Neighbourhood witness statements — confirming the frequent police visits, verbal altercations, and domestic disturbances caused by the ongoing tension.

We emphasized before the Court that the right to residence under the DV Act cannot override ownership rights of senior citizens and that the husband’s legal duty to provide shelter to his wife can be discharged by offering reasonable alternate accommodation.

Result: Eviction Order and Restoration of Peace to the Senior Citizens

After extensive hearings over eight months, the Civil Court allowed our application under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act.

The Court, relying on the ratio laid down in Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja, held that:

“Parents-in-law, being lawful owners of the premises, cannot be compelled to live under continuous hostility. The right to residence of the daughter-in-law does not extend to ownership or indefinite occupation of their property.”

Accordingly, the Court directed that the daughter-in-law be shifted to an alternative accommodation to be arranged and paid for by her husband within a stipulated time.

The Court’s decision reaffirmed that senior citizens’ right to peaceful possession of their property is constitutionally protected and that the DV Act cannot be used as a tool of harassment.

This order marked a significant victory for our clients, who were finally able to live peacefully in their home after two years of litigation and eight months of focused proceedings before the Civil Court.

Outcome in Brief:

1. Application under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act allowed within the Civil Suit.
2. Court relied on Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja (Supreme Court, 2020)
3. Eviction of daughter-in-law from in-laws’ property ordered
4. Husband directed to provide alternate accommodation
5. Relief achieved after 8 months of effective legal representation
6. Senior citizens’ right to peaceful possession upheld

Key Takeaway: Empowering Parents-in-Law Through Civil and DV Remedies

This case demonstrates how the DV Act and Civil Law can work together to protect the rights of elderly parents-in-law when faced with harassment and illegal occupation of their self-owned property.

With proper legal strategy and reliance on Supreme Court precedents like Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja, in-laws can successfully seek the eviction of a daughter-in-law through a civil court by invoking Section 19(1)(f), ensuring both justice and dignity for senior citizens.