Case Analysis: Ritu Chernalia v. Amar Chernalia & Ors., (2023) | Daughter-in-Law Rights in a Shared Household

The Case Analysis 'Ritu Chernalia v. Amar Chernalia & Ors., (2023)' clarifies the concept of 'shared household' as interpreted by the Delhi High Court.

The Delhi Court said that the right to residence is not an indefeasible right of residence in a shared household especially when the daughter-in-law is pitted against the aged father-in-law and mother-in-law.

Case Title: Ritu Chernalia v. Amar Chernalia & Ors.

Court: Delhi High Court

Citation: W.P. (C) 6986/2023

Petitioner: Ritu Chernalia 

Respondents: Amar Chernalia & Ors.

Judge: Prathiba M. Singh, J.

Date of Judgment: 22nd May 2023

Facts of the Case

The Present case relates to the dispute regarding the right to occupy the property in dispute (suit property) by the petitioner and the respondent. The Petitioner had filed the said petition for challenging the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD. By that order, the petitioner had been asked to accommodate her in-laws on the same property. The property had 3 rooms, 1 room was ordered to be given to the in-laws, 2nd room was for the petitioner and her son and the 3rd room was to be used by the petitioner’s minor son for tuition and other purposes, and the same had to remain accessible to all. The Petitioner, however, challenged this order stating that due to her unpleasant relations with her in-laws, she was not willing to share the said disputed property with them.

Before delving into the case’s details, it is important to know that before the Divisional Commissioner passed the above-mentioned order, there was an eviction order passed by the District Magistrate against the petitioner. She had appealed against the same to the DC whereby a middle ground was suggested and both parties were asked to reside and share the suit property.

Issues Involved

The issue involved majorly pertains to ascertaining the right that each party would have on the said suit property keeping into consideration the ‘shared household’ concept and also the senior citizens’ right to have a peaceful place for residing. It is imperative to decide the correct manner for balancing the rights of both parties, where the suit property has to be shared by both of them.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The Petitioner stated that she is satisfied with the setting aside of the eviction order against her as was passed by the District Magistrate, however, the condition imposed by the Divisional Commissioner’s order whereby she has to live in shared accommodation in the suit property with the respondents (her in-laws) is not acceptable to her. She stated that due to her minor son, she did not want to live with her in-laws with whom she had unpleasant relations. Moreover, her counsel also elaborated that she had refused the alternate housings as offered by the respondents and that the most suitable one, which was a neighbouring property itself was refused due to the fact that it had a shared corridor with the other occupants.

Argument by the Respondent

The respondents stated that due to the eviction, they have been living with their married daughter which is an embarrassment for them and because of that they require a right to live in their own house which belongs to them. As per them, they had also provided a list of five alternate properties as accommodation for the petitioner and her minor son to choose so that she could have a residence, and could also get their house back. However, the petitioner refused all five of those properties which seemed unreasonable to them and an unnecessary attempt by her to harass them regardless of realising that they are senior citizens and they must have a place of their own to reside at.

Laws Applied

The laws that have been applied in the present petition include: ‘The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007', 'The Delhi Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules (Amended) Rules, 2016’, Section 2(s) and Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Judgment/ Decision

While making the judgment, the Delhi High Court made reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, 2020 where it had been stated by the apex court that it has to be kept in mind while deciding any case under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 pertaining to ‘shared household’ or any other civil matters that the rights of both the parties, especially where the question is regarding senior citizens who are already in the evening of their life and that they must be regarded the right to live peacefully should be made in a manner that the rights are duly balanced.

Thereby, taking this into consideration, the Delhi High Court in this matter stated that it is imperative to note that the right of the wife or daughter-in-law in the shared household is not ‘indefeasible’ and that their fulfilment must not lead to any ‘exclusion’ of the rights of the in-laws. Therefore, the daughter-in-law is not permitted to state that the in-laws should not be permitted to live in their own house, as this would become contrary to the understanding as garnered above. If at all, it is noted that there have arisen such circumstances whereby the daughter-in-law and the in-laws cannot live together in the shared household at all, then provisions shall be made for alternate housing.

In the present case, since there were alternate housings offered to the petitioner and she had willingly refused them all, it has to be noted that she cannot be permitted to state that the in-laws shall not stay in their own house. Since the property belongs to them their right to stay in that house certainly cannot be questioned. With regards to the petitioner’s stay, she can be allowed to stay at the house in one of the rooms along with her minor son.

The conditions as imposed by the Court are as mentioned below verbatim:

(i) The Petitioner and her son shall occupy one room in the suit property. Respondents 1 and 2 together shall also occupy one bedroom.

(ii) The grandson (petitioner 2) shall be permitted to use the third bedroom for his studies, tuition, etc., However, the said room shall be accessible to all the parties.

(iii) The common areas such as the kitchen, the drawing and the dining room and staircase, etc., shall be used by all the occupants.

(iv) The in-laws are permitted to put up CCTV cameras and the recordings of the same shall be accessible to the petitioner.

Important Links