1. Wife cannot claim residence in the property owned by the in laws. Chances of evicting her from the property owned by your parents are very high .

2 .Yes

3. No, but Court can ask you to pay rent or to provide accommodation to your wife.

1. See wife after marriage has stayed with in-laws house then that is her matermonial home and see can seek residence in same.

Though parents can file under Senior citizen. Welfare and maintenance act on ground that daughter in law is cruel to them and they can try for eviction under it . There are cases wherein daughter in law has been evicted and there is delhi high court judgement on same.

Daughter in law has no rights on property standing in name of in laws 

2) your parents can seek court orders to direct daughter in law to vacate portion of house in her possession 

3) seek injunction restraining her from disturbing their possession of house 

4) your parents have good case on merits 

as the property belongs to your mother you are advised to ask your mother to file an application to evict her from the property before the tribunal, maintenance, and welfare of the parents and senior citizen act, though chances are low, if the trial Court had ordered for her stay in the matrimonial home.

however, you can offer an alternate option in the court to provide her separate accommodation on rent basis for the peaceful living of your old age parents.

1.  If the property belongs to your parents then they may have to initiate a suit for evicting her from their house,they can file an eviction petition under senior citizens act .

2. High court decision is no t required when the provisions of law is very clear, they can file an eviction suit even if there was no maintenance granted to her because they are not the ones giving her maintenance.

3. No, the DV case is different to that of this eviction suit, they can file the suit in civil court.

Dear Sir,,

Your mother having every right to file a Domestic Case against her daughter in law.  And get a injunction order to vacate her from your house.

The following information may kindly be read.

All women in household deserve protection under PWDVA 22

When laws are made to satisfy whims of a few feminizes, the result is such litigation as in this Delhi case below.  It is to the credit of few judges who come out with such judgments every once in a while which puts brakes on the onslaught unleashed by Domestic Violence industry.  Some excerpts of the judgment are below followed by full text later:

The misuse and abuse of the Act is a
matter of serious concern for the courts who are required to be
careful and ensure that a woman petitioner is not made a puppet
or pawn in the hands of her male relatives so as to manipulate
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
and use it for ulterior motives.

…

At the very outset I may observe that merely because
the revisionist no.3 Smt. Sarika Mehta happen to be the real
sister of the husband of present respondent would not ipso-facto
imply a domestic relationship to the extent as contemplated
under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 as she is residing separately with her own husband and
cannot be deemed to be a member of the shared household as a
joint family.

…

Making wild allegations against an unmarried sister-in-law of a
tender marriageable age by an estranged wife of brother
tentamounts to inflicting violence upon her and it is the duty of
the court to ensure that she is protected from the same.

Dear Client

Daughter-in-law has no right on the self-acquired property of her parents-in-law. She can be evicted by them.

Many judgment of HC/SC.

NO relief agasint In laws under DV to prohibit them to evict DIL.

This is my response to you:

1. You can request the court to evict her;

2. Your parents can also apply for separation;

3. Consult a local divorce cum criminal lawyer and file the application.

Dear sir,

although it is difficult to evict the wife without any substantial grounds before the divorce. But, it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. if your divorce case is pending, we can get a decree in your favor and consequently, an order of evicition can be given. accordingly, she will be evicted from the premises.If you are providing the maintenance sufficient enough, then she can also be evicted with due procedure. provided, depends on your lawyer how much he can stress on that.

you can contact me for consultation, if any.

Regards,

YUGANSHU SHARMA

ADVOCATE

DELHI HIGH COURT

Dear Querist

if owner of the property is your parents than they may file an eviction petition before the D.M. under section 22 of Welfare of senior citizen and Parents act-2007, she will be evict from their property.

the magistrate has power to pass an order and restrain them but can not restrain them to adopt the process of law.

there are so many decision of the HC.

Recently Delhi High Court held in case of  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+ W.P.(C) 12294/2018 & CM Nos. 47688-90/2018

 RAJEEV BEHL ..... Petitioner

 Through: Mr Jayant Tripathi and Mr Sarfaraz

 Ahmed, Advocates alongwith

 petitioner in person.

 versus

 STATE & ORS ..... Respondents

 Through: Ms Shefali Vohra, Advocate for R-1

 and R-2.

 CORAM:

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

 ORDER

 % 16.11.2018


VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 17.102018 (hereafter ‗the impugned order') passed by the Divisional Commissioner allowing respondent no.3's appeal preferred under Rule 22 (3) (4) of the Delhi Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (hereafter ‗the said Rules').

2. By the impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner has directed that the petitioner be evicted from the property bearing no. 19, State Bank Colony, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi -110009 (hereafter ‗the property in question') within a period of 30 days from the date of the said order. The petitioner assails the impugned order on several fronts. First, it is submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable as the Divisional Commissioner has failed to consider an earlier order passed by the Additional District Magistrate on 18/21.07.2014, wherein it was observed that the matter pertains to a family dispute over the property. The petitioner claims that the said order had attained finality and, therefore, respondent no.3's complaint could not be entertained. Second, it is stated that since respondent no.3 had limited his relief only to evict the petitioner from the property in question and had not sought any maintenance, his complaint was not maintainable. Third, it is claimed that the Divisional Commissioner has failed to consider the material on record including the SDM's report, which indicated that the dispute is, essentially, a family dispute over the property. Fourth, that the property in question belongs to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of which the petitioner is a coparcener. The petitioner claims that he is, thus, entitled to enjoy the same. Fifth, that respondent no.3 has filed a suit for recovery of possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits (being CS (OS) 2423/2015 captioned S.K. Garg v Rajiv Bahl & Ors.) which is pending adjudication before this Court. The petitioner claims that the issue whether the property in question is a self-acquired property or HUF property, is an issue in the said action.

3. Briefly stated, the aforesaid controversy arises in the following context:-

3.1 The petitioner is the son of respondent no.3 and was born in the year 1966. The petitioner claims that prior to his birth, respondent no.3 had, at the suggestion of his father (the petitioner's grandfather) become a member of SBI Cooperative Society, which was formed by the employees of State Bank of India for developing a colony - a State Bank Colony. The petitioner claims that a sum of ₹500/- was contributed by respondent no.3 to become a member of the said cooperative society, however, the same was paid by the petitioner's grand-father (father of respondent no.3).

3.2 The petitioner's grand-father expired in the year 1966 - the year in which the petitioner was born.

3.3 On 23.10.1967, a sub-lease deed in respect of the property in question was registered in favour of respondent no.1. The approximate cost of the plot was ₹6000/-, which the petitioner asserts was paid by funds arranged by respondent no.3 by selling assets of his father (the petitioner's grand-father). This is disputed by respondent no.3, who claims that the funds were arranged by him.

3.4 The property in question was constructed in the year 1969. Admittedly, the construction was raised by respondent no.3 by availing loan arranged by the SBI Society to the extent of ₹18,000/- approximately. The petitioner claims that the cost of construction was much higher at ₹42,000/- and the balance amount was arranged by respondent no.3 from the assets belonging to the petitioner's grand-father.

3.5 The petitioner claims that in the year 1988-89 an ancestral property (a house located at Mukerian) was sold.

3.6 On 11.08.2010, respondent no.3 filed a police complaint against the petitioner and his wife, wherein he stated that he had requested the petitioner and his wife to vacate the property in question but they had threatened him with dire consequences. He alleged that the petitioner had threatened himthat the petitioner would kill himself and blame him (respondent no.3) for it. He further alleged that on 11.08.2010, the petitioner had tried to commit suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil on himself.

3.7 The record indicates that respondent no.3 made several complaints thereafter, alleging that the petitioner and his wife were threatening and blackmailing respondent no.3. The complaints made to the police authorities indicate that the respondent no.3 was distressed by the behaviour of the petitioner and his wife.

3.8 Respondent no.3 also filed a complaint before the Maintenance Tribunal (Case No. ADM/N/Tribunal/2014/635-37) constituted under the Parents and Senior citizens, Act 2007 praying that the petitioner be evicted from the premises in question. The said complaint was disposed of by the Maintenance Tribunal by an order dated 21.07.2018, inter alia, holding that the dispute with regard to the property in question is civil in nature and the same could not be decided under the said Act. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below:-

―The present application of property dispute is beyond the scope of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act and is out of the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, however, the Tribunal directs the respondents no. 1 & 2 :

1) to take care of the petitioner in proper and respectful manner and ensure that no inconvenience is caused to him in future.

2) further the SHO, PS Model Town, Delhi is directed to ensure safety and protection of life of the old aged petitioner so that he may live a peaceful life.

Copy of the order be sent to applicant as well as the Respondent.

File closed and consigned to record.‖ 3.9 In the year 2014, respondent no.3 filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner. The said suit was disposed of on 18.02.2015 on the statement of the respondent no.3 that he would not dispossess the petitioner without due process of law.

3.10 Respondent no.3 continued to make complaints even thereafter seeking assistance from the police authorities.

3.11 Thereafter, respondent no.3 filed a suit for ejectment (Suit No. 275/2014), inter alia, praying for a decree of ejectment against the petitioner and his wife. The said suit was withdrawn by respondent no.3 with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

3.12 Thereafter, on 11.08.2015 respondent no.3 instituted another suit (CS (OS) 2423/2015), inter alia, praying for a decree of possession against the petitioner and his wife with a direction for them to vacate the premises in question.

3.13 The said suit is stated to be pending adjudication before this Court.

4. Mr Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended there were no new facts that would justify the Divisional Commissioner to take a view contrary to the one taken by the Maintenance Tribunal in its order dated 21.07.2014. He submitted that the first police complaint by respondent no.3 was made on 11.08.2010 and all further complaints were, essentially, in the nature of reminders.

5. He further contended that the principal dispute between the parties is with regard to the title of the property in question: whereas respondent no.3 claims the property to be a self-acquired property, the petitioner claims the same to be a HUF property. He submitted that whether the respondent no.3 had any right to evict the petitioner from the premises in question is an issue pending trial in the suit filed by the respondent no.3.

6. He further contended that the respondent no.3 had not sought any maintenance from the petitioner and, therefore, his application under Rule 22 (3)(1)(i) of the said Rules was not maintainable.

Reasons and Conclusion

7. This Court is not persuaded to accept any of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The record clearly indicates that respondent no.3 had been consistently making complaints to the police authorities and, therefore, it is incorrect to contend that respondent no.3 had made only one police complaint and the other letters were just reminders. It is seen that on 11.08.2010, respondent no.3 filed a complaint with the DCP, P.S. Model Town alleging that the petitioner and his wife had threatened him with dire consequences, and further threatened that they would commit suicide and blame him for the same. He also expressed fear for his daughters. The said complaint was followed by another complaint dated 20.05.2014. Respondent no.3 once again alleged that he was being threatened by the petitioner, who was also interfering in daily matters. A perusal of the said complaint indicates that respondent no.3 had sought action from the police so that he could live peacefully with his wife. On 20.05.2014, the respondent no.3 once again sent a reminder stating that he and his wife were living in panic due to the violent behaviour of the petitioner and his wife. On 13.05.2014, respondent no.3 filed yet another complaint with the SHO stating that he was depressed by the acts of his son and his wife, and further requesting that an early action be taken so that he and his wife could leave peacefully. On 16.06.2014, respondent no.3 once again appealed for help from the SHO. He complained that ―they all together want to finish me and usurp my property. They can harm me anytime‖. On 16.07.2014, respondent no.3 filed another complaint stating that the petitioner had placed a refrigerator which exudes heat and also blocks the passage, making it impossible for respondent no.3 to sit in his room. He further stated that the petitioner and his wife were blackmailing him and he was depressed by the acts of the petitioner and his wife.

8. There are several other complaints which have been placed on record. However, it is not necessary to refer to them. Suffice it to state that a plain reading of the complaints indicate that respondent no.3 was distressed by the behaviour of his son and his daughter-in-law (the petitioner and his wife).

9. It is in this context that the respondent no.3 made an application to the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 22 (3)(1)(i) of the said Rules seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on account of cruelty and ill treatment. The said application was rejected by an order dated 30.01.2018. This led respondent no.3 to file an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner under Rule 22(3)(4) of the said Rules.

10. In the impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner has concluded that respondent no.3 is being harassed and ill treated and the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is directed to be evicted from the premises in question, in order for respondent no.3 to live peacefully in his self-acquired property. This Court finds no infirmity with the aforesaid view.

11. The contention that it was not open for the Divisional Commissioner to take a view contrary to the view taken by the Maintenance Tribunal in its order dated 21.07.2014 is, plainly, unmerited. The record indicates that respondent no.3 had continued to complain regarding his ill treatment. The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 (the said Rules) were amended by the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2016 and provisions were introduced enabling a Senior Citizen to make an application before the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate for eviction of a son, daughter or legal heirs from his self-acquired property. Thus, the application filed by respondent no.3 was clearly maintainable, and the contention to the contrary is bereft of any merit.

12. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the respondent no.3 had not sought any maintenance from him, an application under Rule 22(3)(1)(i) of the said Rules was not maintainable. This contention is also unmerited. Rule 22 (3)(i) of the said Rules enables a senior citizen to make an application for eviction of a son, daughter or legal heir on account of non-maintenance and ill treatment.

13. Rule 22(3)(1) of the said Rules, as amended by the Delhi Maintenance Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2017, is set out below:

22(3) (1) Procedure for eviction from property/residential building of Senior Citizen/Parents --

(i) A senior citizen/parents may make an application before the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate of his district for eviction of his son and daughter or legal heir from his property of any kind whether movable or immovable, ancestral or self acquired, tangible or intangible and include rights or interests in such property on account of his non-maintenance and ill-treatment.

(ii) The Deputy Commissioner/DM shall immediately forward such application to the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrates for verification of the title of the property and facts of the case within 15 days from the date of receipt of such application.

(iii) The Sub Divisional Magistrate shall immediately submit its report to the Deputy Commissioner/DM for final orders within 21 days from the date of receipt of the complaint/application

(iv) The Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate during summary proceedings for the protection of senior citizen/parents shall consider all the relevant provisions of the said Act. If the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate is of opinion that any son or daughter or legal heir of a senior citizen/parents is not maintaining the senior citizen and ill treating him and yet is occupying the property of any kind whether movable or immovable, ancestral or self acquired, tangible or intangible and include rights or interests in such property of the senior citizen, and that they should be evicted. The Deputy Commissioner/ District Magistrate shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be issued against them/him/her.

(v) The notice shall--

(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made and

(b) require all persons concerned that is to say, all persons who are or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in the property/premises, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than ten days from the date of issued thereof.‖

14. In sub clause (i) of Rule 22(3)(1) of the Rules as referred above, the word ―and‖ is used between the expressions ―non-maintenance‖ and ―ill-

treatment‖. However, the same cannot be construed to mean that a senior citizen can file an application only when he has a grievance regarding non- maintenance as well as ill-treatment. Read in the correct perspective, the word ―and‖ is used to denote that both the grounds ‒ of non-maintenance as well as ill-treatment - are available to a senior citizen for evicting his son, daughter or heirs. The contention that a senior citizen can maintain an application under Rule 22(3)(1)(i) of the said Rules only when he cumulatively establishes his allegation of non-maintenance and ill-treatment, cannot be accepted. This is so because accepting such contention would mean that so long as the son, daughter or heirs continue to pay maintenance, he or she can continue to ill-treat the senior citizen without fear of being evicted under Rule 22(3) of the said Rules. Such a construction of Rule 22(3) of the said Rules would militate against very object and purpose of enacting the said Rules.

15. The next question to be examined is whether the decision of the Divisional Commissioner, to direct eviction of the petitioner, can be faulted on the ground of disputes raised by the petitioner with respect to the title of the property in question.

16. This Court is, prima facie, of the view that the case set up by the petitioner that the property in question is an HUF property is a ruse and is not sustainable. Respondent no.3 had become a member of the said society (SBI Cooperative Society) much prior to the birth of the petitioner. The lease deed of the property in question was registered in favour of respondent no.3 way back in 1967. The Division Commission found that there was no material which would establish the petitioner's case that the property in question is an HUF property. Merely claiming that the property in question had been purchased by sale of ancestral property can be of little assistance to the petitioner.

17. In Sunny (Minor) v. Raj Singh (2015) 225 DLT 211, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204 and had explained the circumstances where a person could claim a property to be an HUF property. The Court further held that if a person claims that the property is an HUF property, he or she is required to make positive statements in the plaint as to how and when the HUF was created and as to when the property stated to be the HUF property was thrown into the common Hotchpot. Prima facie, a plain reading of the averments made in the petition as well as in the written statement, filed by the petitioner in CS(OS) 2423 of 2015, fails to provide the particulars necessary for establishing a case of HUF property.

18. It is not necessary to further dwell into the controversy whether the property in question is an HUF property as claimed by the petitioner. This is so because notwithstanding such claim, the petitioner cannot resist ejection from the property in question.

19. It is relevant to note that Clause (i) of Rule 22(3)(1) as introduced by the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2016 read as under:-

―(i) A senior citizen may make an application before the Dy. Commissioner/District Magistrate (DM) of his district for eviction of his son and daughter or legal heir from his self acquired property on account of his non-maintenance and ill- treatment.‖

20. The said Clause was thereafter substituted by virtue of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2017 and the reference to the self acquired property was now deleted. The Clause as it stands today expressly permits a citizen/parent to make an application for eviction of his son, daughter and legal heir from the property of any kind whether movable and immovable, ancestral or self-acquired and tangible or intangible. Thus, the defence raised by the petitioner in regard to the nature of the property in question is of little relevance.

21. The contention that the Divisional Commissioner has ignored the report of the SDM that the dispute is a property dispute is also unpersuasive. It is apparent from the plain reading of the impugned order that the Divisional Commissioner has examined the complaint of respondent no.3 and the material on record. There is ample material on record to indicate that respondent no.3 was distressed by the conduct of the petitioner and his wife.

Respondent no.3 has a right to live peacefully and this Court finds no infirmity with the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner.

22. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at ₹15,000/-. The cost shall be paid by the petitioner to respondent no.3 within a period of three weeks from today.

23. All pending applications stand disposed of.

Feel Free to Call

You can file case under senior citizens Act to evict her. She has right to claim maintenance and you have right to object. 

The maintenance of wife is the personal obligation of the husband. Accordingly, Section 4 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, any liability in respect of maintenance of daughter-in-law in the vent of the death of the son cannot be fastened upon the self-acquired property of the parents-in-law.

The properties shown exclusively in the name of parents cannot be the subject matter of any attachment or enforcement of any right of maintenance of wife against her husband. 

1.  The SC in the SR Batra versus Taruna Batra case had also held a house which was the exclusive property of a mother-in-law could not be said to be a shared household. A married woman cannot claim her right on such a property either.                   Thus u should give evidence in DV court of the self acquired property of your mother and also u living separate from your parents. 

If a house exclusively belongs to a father-in-law and his son is living separately, the daughter-in-law has no right to live in the house.  The property cannot be claimed to be a shared household. 

Your parents should file a civil suit before the district court for permanent injunction. 

1. The parents may file a case for eviction on the ground that rent for accommodation is being paid by you. 

2. Case will have to be filed before the maintenance tribunal. refer to the judgment available at the following link: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17K8QIR_wLIJqLRi2nnwk5cNuwmuiOzyS/view

3. No

Regards   

Dear Client 

There is no law which can forcefully evict a married woman from her matrimonial home in case of dispute of Domestic violence. 

But under Domestic violence act Section 17 specifically states the right to reside in share hold house. 

But if your mother disown you and your wife from her self acquired property there may be chances that court order her eviction from that house but subsequently order you to pay Rent for her accommodation.