The Delhi High Court has held that a daughter-in-law cannot claim an independent right to continue residing in her mother-in-law's self-acquired property once the residential rights granted to her husband have been terminated.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed an appeal filed by a woman challenging a civil court decree that directed her eviction from her mother-in-law's property.

The Court clarified that a daughter-in-law's right of residence, if any, is enforceable against her husband and not against the mother-in-law who exclusively owns the property.

“Any right of residence is against the husband and not against the mother-in-law,” the Court observed.

The parties were married in 2003 and initially lived with the husband's mother. Due to family disputes, the couple shifted elsewhere but returned in 2014 to reside in the mother-in-law's self-acquired house.

The mother-in-law subsequently entered into a licence arrangement with her son through a rent agreement requiring payment of ₹3,000 per month. However, when the rent remained unpaid, she terminated the arrangement and publicly disowned her son from her property in 2017.

Despite the termination of the licence, the daughter-in-law and her child continued to occupy the premises.

The mother-in-law thereafter filed a civil suit seeking protection of her ownership rights and restraining the couple from creating any third-party interest in the property. A decree was eventually passed in her favour.

Before the High Court, the daughter-in-law argued that she was entitled to reside in the matrimonial home even if it was owned by her mother-in-law.

Rejecting the contention, the Court held that the property was the self-acquired property of the mother-in-law and could not be treated as a "shared household" in the circumstances of the case.

The Court noted that once the licence granted to the husband stood terminated, neither the husband nor the wife retained any legal right, title, or interest in the property.

The Court further emphasized that protections available under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 cannot create a superior right in favour of the daughter-in-law over and above the rights available to her husband.

“Her rights and obligations shall not be higher or larger than those of the tenant himself. Herein, once the license of the husband itself has been terminated, no better protection can be accorded to the Appellant,” the Court held.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree in favour of the mother-in-law.

The judgment reiterates that a daughter-in-law cannot assert an independent right to occupy her mother-in-law's self-acquired property merely on the ground that it was once her matrimonial residence. The Court clarified that residence rights under the Domestic Violence Act are ordinarily enforceable against the husband and do not automatically create proprietary or occupancy rights against the mother-in-law's exclusive property.