Kavita Chaudhari Vs Eveneet Singh And Anr (Delhi HC) (CS(OS) 505/2010)
7. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has strenuously argued that in accordance with the settled legal position the daughter in-law would have no right to claim any right of residence in the suit property which is owned by her mother in-law. It is further stated that in view of the order of this Court dated 12.3.2013 title of the plaintiff to the suit property is not in dispute. Relying on judgment of this court in the case of Shumita Didi Sandhu versus Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors. 174(2010) DLT 79; Sunil Madan versus Rachna Madan in Crl.M.C.3071/2008, dated 2.6.2012, and; Barun Kumar Nahar versus Parul Nahar 2013 (199) DLT 1, it is stated that the suit in question is not a shared household within the meaning of The Domestic Violence Act and accordingly defendant no.1 would have no rights under Section 17 of the said Act.
23.The Division Bench also held that the right of residence which a wife undoubtedly has does not mean right to reside in a particular property. It may mean a right to reside in a commensurate property but it cannot translate into a right to reside in a particular property.
27. As defendant No.1 has no rights under the Domestic Violence Act, the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the suit is a gross abuse of the process of court is a submission without merit.
28. In view of the above, there is no merit in the contentions of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has no right to continue to reside in the suit property or to disturb the possession of the plaintiff to the said property. Accordingly, a decree is passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant No.1 restraining the defendant No.1, her agents, representatives etc from entering into premises D-32, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs.