Relief Achieved in 7 Months: Eviction from Jointly-Owned Property Despite Prior Orders
Background: Complex Case Involving Nine Pending Litigations
Our clients, a retired mother-in-law and her son, residents of South Delhi, approached our firm at a highly complicated stage of litigation. The mother-in-law and her son were joint owners of the matrimonial property. At the same time, the daughter-in-law had already initiated multiple legal proceedings, including cases under the Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 Cr.P.C., divorce proceedings, and civil suits.
In total, there were nine separate litigations pending between the parties across different courts, the Mahila Court, Family Court, Civil Court, and the Appellate Court.
The most challenging aspect was that the daughter-in-law had already secured two interim protection orders restraining her dispossession from the matrimonial home:
- One from the Mahila Court under the Domestic Violence Act.
- Another from the Family Court in a civil suit she herself had filed seeking residence rights.
Both orders were adverse to our clients and had created a deadlock, preventing the elderly mother-in-law and her son from reclaiming peaceful possession of their own house.
Our Legal Intervention: Entering at Appeal Stage & Moving Application Under Section 19(1)(f)
When the matter came to us, the husband’s side had already challenged the protection orders in the Appellate Court. We were briefed at the appeal stage, where the factual matrix was already complicated, and the lower courts’ orders were heavily relied upon by the daughter-in-law.
After meticulously reviewing the entire litigation history and the pending appeals, our team advised a two-fold strategy:
- Continue with the appeal against the earlier non-eviction orders; and
- Move a fresh application under Section 19(1)(f) of the Domestic Violence Act during the pendency of the appeal itself, seeking directions to shift the daughter-in-law to an alternative accommodation, in line with her statutory right of residence but without infringing upon the joint ownership rights of the in-laws.
Our argument was rooted in the true intent of Section 19(1)(f), balancing a woman’s right to residence with the fundamental property and privacy rights of her in-laws.
Key Legal Argument Presented Before the Appellate Court
During oral arguments, our lead counsel strongly contended that:
“The DV Act gives the daughter-in-law a right to residence, but not a right to chain herself to her in-laws’ house. The law protects her roof, but not her chosen address.”
We emphasised that the property in question was jointly owned by the husband and his mother, and hence, no exclusive or vested right of residence could arise against the mother-in-law.
Further, we demonstrated that the daughter-in-law was already enjoying protection of residence through two interim orders — but the law does not envisage an indefinite occupation or harassment of elderly in-laws under the guise of “right to residence.”
Evidence and Submissions Placed on Record:
Our submissions were fortified with:
- Title documents showing joint ownership between husband and mother-in-law.
- Certified copies of prior court orders to demonstrate multiple pending proceedings and overlapping reliefs.
- Medical records of the elderly mother-in-law proving her deteriorating health due to continuous stress.
- Affidavit of the husband offering to provide reasonable alternative accommodation within the same locality, ensuring compliance with the protective purpose of the DV Act.
We also highlighted the abuse of process of law by the daughter-in-law, who was simultaneously pursuing parallel and repetitive litigation in multiple forums, resulting in judicial inconsistency and harassment of the senior citizen.
Result: Appellate Court Allows the Application & Restores Balance
After detailed hearings, the Appellate Court accepted our application under Section 19(1)(f). It modified the earlier protection orders, holding that while the daughter-in-law was entitled to shelter, such right could not translate into an indefinite occupation of her in-laws’ jointly owned property.
The Court accordingly directed that the daughter-in-law be shifted to suitable alternate accommodation, to be arranged by her husband, and restrained her from interfering in the peaceful possession of the in-laws.
This judgment not only vacated the earlier restrictive orders but also brought a seven-month-long appellate battle to a decisive close, restoring dignity and relief to our clients.
Outcome in Brief
A. Appeal partly allowed; previous non-eviction orders modified
B. Application under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act allowed
C. Court held that “Right to residence ≠ right to occupy in-laws’ house indefinitely”
D. Daughter-in-law directed to shift to the alternate accommodation arranged by her husband
E. Relief achieved in 7 months, after navigating 9 litigations and two prior adverse orders
F. Joint ownership of husband and mother-in-law recognised and protected
Key Takeaway: Balancing Protection with Property Rights
This case highlights that even when multiple orders exist in favour of a daughter-in-law, the courts can still intervene under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act to ensure a fair balance between protection and peaceful possession.
Through precise legal argument and judicial persuasion, our firm demonstrated that a daughter-in-law’s right to residence is not absolute — it must coexist with the fundamental rights of in-laws to enjoy their own property without undue interference.
This success reaffirmed the principle that the DV Act protects women from being roofless, not lawless, ensuring justice for both sides.