Twitter
Advertisement

Bombay High Court comes to woman's aid who was evicted by mother-in-law from matrimonial home

The mother-in-law had moved the civil court, claiming that the house was owned by her and she did not want the son and daughter-in-law to stay in the house. The court accepting the same had allowed the plea, which was challenged in the high court by the daughter-in-law.

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

The Bombay High Court has come to the rescue of a woman residing in Andheri, who was driven out of her matrimonial house, 25 years back, by her mother-in-law. The mother-in-law claimed that the property was owned by her and due to the marital discord between her daughter-in-law and her son, she was suffering from mental agony.

Justice Dr Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, while setting aside the order passed by the civil court in 2O14, said, “The woman becomes entitled for protection of her residence in the shared household. To dispossess her therefrom would be against the very scheme, object and purport of the Domestic Violence Act. It would be as good as playing in the hands of her husband, who has put forth his mother to evict appellant, when his own efforts to do so failed.”

The mother-in-law had moved the civil court, claiming that the house was owned by her and she did not want the son and daughter-in-law to stay in the house. The court accepting the same had allowed the plea, which was challenged in the high court by the daughter-in-law.

Advocate Jai Kanade and advocate Sumit Kothari appearing for the woman, argued that the mother-in-law did not have income of her own, and the present house was purchased after an ancestral property was sold, in which, her husband had a share.Furthermore, the husband has filed for divorce, which is pending in the family court, where it has restrained the husband and his mother, from evicting the woman from the house. Since the family court order was in her favour, the mother and son have colluded together and adopted this new proceeding to remove her.

The husband supported her mother’s plea, and even argued that he has got a house in Goregaon and has moved out of the house. He claimed to have had offered an alternate accommodation to his wife, which she refused.The court, after going through the facts and relying on the Supreme Court and High Court judgements, said, “The relationship between the couple still remains, and secondly, the property will ultimately revert to the son, in case of the death of mother-in-law, there being no deed of relinquishment or other deed of partition or separation between them. Hence, on the mere showing that husband has started residing separately, calling upon the woman to leave the suit premises is, as good as denying the statutory right of residence to her.”

It also accepted the woman’s argument, and said, “It appears that the husband and his mother are acting in collusion to deprive the woman from her right of remaining in residence of the suit premises.”The court, however, also observed that if the husband offers alternate premises, then the woman can consider the same for mutual peace and harmony.

 

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement