She has right which can be taken care by giving her alternative accommodation also. Even you parents can evict her under senior citizen Act if she is harassing them

You are absolutely correct 

DV case is maintainable against sister in law 

SC judgment is binding on all courts 

Challenge this order before the higher court. Since this house is shared household of both your wife and your sister in law, both of them can reside therein. 

Your grievance is against the  order passed by Sessions Court, you need approach High Court against the  order of Sessions Court.

You can file a suit for partition to divide the property among the legal heirs equally.

Your sister in law do not have any rights in the property except that she is the wife of her absconding husband.

It is the responsibility of her abandoned husband to take care of her and moreover she cannot claim any share in the property during the lifetime of her husband.

 Therefore instead of filing DV case or an appeal against the judgment in the DV case better you file a suit for partition and occupy your property in one portion/one room of the property because you have rights in it.

• Under Prabha Tyagi and other Supreme Court rulings, a woman’s right to reside in the “shared household” does not require her current physical stay at the time of alleged violence.
• If your father’s property was your permanent family home, your wife can still claim protection under the DV Act.
• The lower courts’ denial can be challenged by filing a revision or appeal in the High Court, citing Prabha Tyagi and Satish Chander Ahuja.
• Also consider a partition suit to establish your share, further supporting her right to reside.

file appeal against said order before HC 

Basically the DV case was filed by your wife, perhaps for the relief of residence in the shared household against your sister in law. 

The question of law is that firstly your wife cannot file this complaint against your sister in law seeking the because it is not her house property.hence our sister in law is not the proper person from whom she can claim this rights as per the provisions of law you invoked in the DV case.

Secondly,your wife, if thrown out of her matrimonial house then she can claim such rights only from her husband if he is alive.

Third thing if at all your sister in law has stepped up any criminal activity against your wife, then your wife can file a criminal complaint against your sister in law from remedy through criminal law.  Basically the DV case is for civil remedy and not for taking revenge due to domestic incidents.

You can file a suit for partition because as a legal heir to your deceased father you are entitled to a share in that property and seek remedy accordingly hence your approach fro getting the property through this type of strategy certainly appears to be an abuse of law, therefore there is no point in finding fault in the judgment made by the trial court as well as the appellate court.

Besides, the supreme court judgment about shared household will not be applicable to your situation and it cannot be invoked here. 

Before taking any more steps in continuation, you may discuss at length with an experienced lawyer and take proper decision based on your situation and the remedy you are looking for. 

• File a Revision Petition in the High Court (Article 227) – The lower court ignored Prabha Tyagi and Satish Chander Ahuja rulings, violating Article 141. Physical residence is not required for claiming shared household rights.

• Highlight Judicial Overreach – The Sessions Court wrongly dismissed the case as "misuse" without addressing extortion, intimidation, and legal rights under Section 17 of the DV Act.

• Continue Criminal Complaints – Pursue extortion, criminal intimidation, and trespass cases to pressure your sister-in-law legally.

• File for Partition – This will strengthen your wife’s right to residence and counter her false claims.

You have good case on merits 

you should succeed in appeal 

1 Your wife has filed a DV case seeking residence rights terming it as shared  household, whereas your wife has already left the house as on the date of complaint, besides if there was a threat to her life while residing in the shared household, she can seek protection, hence there is no question for any such threats. As far as her jewels are concerned she can very well take it back, and if your sister in law refuses your wife to an access then your wife can lodge a criminal complaint agaisnt her for theft, breach of trust, cheating and many other offences. DV case may not be a proper remedy to your wife in this regard.In this event your wife's rights and demands for residence can be made only with you and not in the place where you don't reside and also you have never deserted her or abandon her that she is literally on streets, especially this relief she can demand only from you i.e., from her husband, if he is living.

2. If both are residing in the same house, and if one of them is aggrieved due to the acts of other shareholder then they can very well file the case by impleading the aggressor as respondent.

The wife is entitled for residence through her husband, if it was denied then she can claim rights in her matrimonial home on the basis of the shared household.

You may have done solid homework before filing the DV case, but from your query and your previous query on this platform,  it is clear that you are seeking right of possession to your father's property 

Your father is no more and so his estate including the subject flat would devolve on your mother and 2 sons and after the mother's death the 2 sons would become entitled to the flat equally 

So instead of putting your wife in the front by filing the DV case you could have simply filed a suit for partition and separate possession 

If you are aggrieved by the orders of the trial and session court you must then approach the High Court by filing a petition under Article 227, when you are so sure that the Apex Court's judgment in Pratibha Tyagi squarely applies to your case

1) as long as domestic relationship, subsists between an aggrieved person and the respondent right to reside  in the shared household exist,

2) even cases where a woman has not actually resided  in the shared household, she can still enforce her right of residence under section 17 of the D act,

3)right to reside  in the shared household is irrespective of a legal title or actual residence in the shared household

Upon reading your above Para 1 in the follow up the first thing that ought to have been done was to file a police complaint against the sister in law who intimidated and threatened your wife to such an extent that she feared for her life and had to run away from the incident site.. was such a police complaint lodged ? Instead of that,  the wife files a DV case that too after 1 year of the incident ...this in essence shows that under the garb of domestic violence,  it is you who is attempting to re-enter the house by using his wife as a front 

As you are a legal heir and since your entry is being denied , all you were required to do was to file a partition suit seeking separate possession or if not partition then seeking joint possession. So a bypass is devised by using the DV law. I'm afraid it will be very difficult to get relief given your facts

A party aggrieved by the judgement of the trial court has rights to prefer an appeal before the appellate court to get your grievances redressed.

But before that you may obtain an opinion from an experienced lawyer practising in High court about the maintainability of the proposed appeal before high court.

The applicability of the referred judgement to this situation is to enquired before filing the appeal.

Wife can’t claim matter of right in properly of in-laws as shared household. If she is legally entitled then accommodation can be arranged alternatively 

We cannot see answers from other advocates 

hence we cannot comment on any answer given by any lawyer on the website 

we do apologise if your feelings have been hurt by un warranted comments from any lawyer on this website 

Mr., be extremely careful with the choice of your words, it may land you in deep legal trouble 

If you seek opinion and advice then you should be willing to hear even the negatives. That can by no stretch of imagination be called slander or defamation. If the facts as you have narrated in your queries are all that there is to it, I would have said the same thing on your face. 

You cannot 'expect' to hear things which soothe or comfort you or your ignorant beliefs. If you seek an opinion then you should also 'expect' to hear what's adverse. Advocates are not anybody's mouthpiece 

For now, I refrain, otherwise wouldn't hesitate to take your above comment to its logical conclusion however within the four corners of law 

Admin - Plz remove this person's query from my list and please see to it that I don't get any email for any further follow up of this person 

This Portal will no take the responsibility towards the opinions rendered by any advocate here.

If you feel offended by any opinion of  any advocate you can pursue the process of law to get your grievances redressed 

As opined earlier, you are at your liberty to take any action as prescribed in law against any person who has offended you and caused you grievance, that is purely personal, but writing and discussing about such issues in the public portal like this  is considered inappropriate not in good taste.

you may decide.accordingly.

Raise the issue with admin of this website 

I thought your above comment was in response to mine

I didn't know you were referring to some other advocate 

The answering lawyers here aren't able to see the responses of other advocates unless the advocate logs out of the portal when he will be able to see other advocates' replies and provided also that the querist has not selected the option of keeping the responses hidden while posting his query 

Since you were referring to someone else and I mistakenly believed it to be me, I wrote the above, for which I say sorry 

If the above words like 'funny chap' and 'mischief monger' were indeed uttered by the concerned advocate in his reply to your query then that's unfortunate. It could have been avoided. 

Since you are one of the legal heir of the property, why haven't you not filed a partition suit. Instead of going around to catch the nose by filing DV case by your wife against the sister-in-law. Things would have been more favorable if you had filed a partition suit.  

Thanks for appreciation

Your best option is to file a partition suit for division of property by metes and bounds 

Seek injunction Restraining your brother from selling the property

It is true. You have to pay court fees for filing a partition suit and court fees are substantial amount.

You are welcome for your understanding and appreciations.

If you are desirous of permanent solution then it is pertinent that you initiate appropriate legal actions which will not only bring you proper relief but also solace to your present crisis as well as future issues.

Best of luck

Legal Action Plan – High Court Challenge & Property Rights

1️⃣ Challenge DV Act Rejection in High Court

• File a Revision Petition (Article 227) citing Prabha Tyagi judgment on shared household.
• Highlight exclusion from property as domestic violence.

2️⃣ File a Partition Suit

• Establish co-ownership of the property to strengthen your claim.
• This will help secure permanent residence rights for your wife.

3️⃣ Continue Criminal Cases

• Pursue extortion, criminal intimidation, and trespass cases against your sister-in-law.

4️⃣ Alternative: Permanent Injunction

• If needed, file under the Specific Relief Act to prevent illegal eviction.

For detailed, personalized advice, consider a phone consultancy. Hope you find the information helpful. You are free to contact me for further discussion. If you could spare two minutes of your time to write a review, it would be greatly appreciated and bring immense happiness to read it. Thank you. Shubham Goyal.

Dear Client,

Your case raises two key legal issues: (1) Whether your wife has the right to claim residence in the shared household under Section 17 of the DVA Act? and (2) Whether your sister-in-law can be a respondent in the case? The Prabha Tyagi (2022) judgment by the Supreme Court clarifies that a woman’s right to reside in her matrimonial home does not depend on her physical presence at the time of domestic violence, making your wife’s exclusion from the property a valid ground under domestic violence laws. Additionally, the 2016 Supreme Court ruling allows female relatives to be named as respondents if their actions contribute to economic or emotional abuse. Given that your wife resided in the house for three years, left her streedhan there, and was later excluded through threats and extortion demands, the lower courts’ dismissal of the case seems contrary to Article 141 (binding nature of Supreme Court judgments). You should challenge the order in the High Court, arguing misinterpretation of the law and failure to consider constructive residence under the DVA Act.

- As per the Mumbai High Court, Domestic violence complaint can be filed against relatives residing in another house.

- Further, Supreme Court also declared that it is not mandatory to live under one roof for filing the complaint under the provision of DV Act 

- Hence, your statements are correct  , and you can approach the higher Court against the said passed order.