Decided cases on rights of the woman in their matrimonial homes

528 votes

Sorry, this platform is for advisory over the issue if u place before to us. For you kind information there are numerous judgement in the regard you are asking for. But it's duty of your counsel to search and put before the honble court.
Best wishes

Advocate Salil Tripathi LawRato

970 votes

As per the facts mentioned by you, there is no law as such which gives actual right to a woman to ask for the division or share of the matrimonial house. However, there have been cases where a woman has been allowed and given a right to have continuous stay at her matrimonial house even in the cases where the husband or the in-laws have an objection to it.
The case titled as Smt. Taruna Batra versus S.R Batra AIR 2005 Delhi 270, 116 (2005) DLT 646 decided by the Delhi High Court has held in the following paragraphs held that:
"17. It was contended by learned counsel for the Respondents that his clients, who own the Ashok Vihar property, had only permitted the Petitioner to reside on the second floor of the said property. This permissive user, according to him, did not give her any right to continue to reside in that property and she had no proprietary interest in the property. I am not impressed with this contention. I have already held that the second floor of the said property was the matrimonial home of the Petitioner and, therefore, she has a right to stay there as against Amit Batra. As regards her proprietary interest, it cannot be forgotten that the Respondents are not complete strangers, in which case the position may be completely different - the Respondents are the parents of Amit Batra and the parents in law of the Petitioner and I do not think the theory of permissive user can be advantageously used by them in the Indian context particularly when their son and the Petitioner actually lived together with them on the ground floor and thereafter shifted to the second floor of the same property with their full knowledge and consent, with a view to shift their matrimonial home from the ground floor to the second floor.

18. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge was quite right in concluding, though for different reasons, that the Petitioner is entitled to continue to reside in the second floor of property bearing No.B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17th September, 2004 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is set aside and it is held that the Petitioner is entitled to continue to reside with her son on the second floor of B-135, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, which is her matrimonial home and that the Respondents or anyone claiming under them cannot deny her access to her matrimonial home or interfere in her possession thereof."
Kindly let us know if you need further assistance.
Thanks & Regards

Advocate Megha Kain LawRato

772 votes

To, Dated :06.09.2017
Dear Madam,

Sub: Legal opinion regarding the query dated 06.09.2017.


Dear Madam,

As per the following judgment, you can reside with parents in law at separate floor in same shared household under section 17 of Domestic Violence Act.

1. Navneet Arora Versus Surender Kaur & Ors. 2015 III AD (Delhi) 337.

2. Nidhi Kumar Gandhi versus State of others 157 (2009) Delhi Law Times 472.

3. Shambhu Prasad Singh Versus Manjari 190 (2012) Delhi Law Time 647 (DB)

4. S.R. Batra & Ors. Versus Tarun Batra AIR 2007 SC 1118.

5. Preeti Satija Versus Raj Kumar & Others 2007 (2014) Delhi Law Times 78 (DB).

It is further submit that as per the conclusion of the all judgments you can reside with parents in law a separate floor share household under section 17 of Domestic Violence Act. Except the following conditions:-

1. Section 17, 19 of Domestic Violence Act, right of the estranged wife against the husband, not against the father in law, or other relatives mother in law.

2. question property cannot be called shared household.

3. Right to alternative accommodation claim can be made to husband only.
4. If the property is joint family, you can enjoy the section 17 of the D.V. Act

5. Property must be joint family as well as belong to the husband.

This is my legal opinion.

Copy kept.

With regard.


Regards

Advocate Rama Kant Kashyap LawRato