Court Rules Eviction of Widowed Daughter-in-Law Must Await Provision of Alternate Accommodation or Payment of Rent, Setting Aside Mesne Profits Award
In a landmark judgment delivered on October 12, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Ms. Neena Bansal Krishna, J., in the case of Late Raj Kumar @ Babbal (Deceased) through Legal Representatives vs. Sh. Attar Singh, examined the complex intersection of property ownership rights and the protection of residence rights of a widowed daughter-in-law under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).
The dispute centered around a residential property in Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, owned by the plaintiff, Sh. Attar Singh, who sought possession of the property against his deceased son Raj Kumar @ Babbal's legal representatives, including the widow, Mrs. Manju Verma, and daughters. The plaintiff claimed that the son and his family were only permissive occupants, living as licensees, and had illegally inducted tenants into the property. The plaintiff successfully obtained a decree for possession and damages/mesne profits at Rs. 10,000 per month from January 2013 until vacation of possession.
The appellants challenged the decree, asserting that Mrs. Verma, as a widowed daughter-in-law, had an independent right to reside in the property, which constituted her "shared household" under the DV Act. They argued that this right survives the death of her husband and cannot be defeated solely on the basis of the plaintiff's ownership. They further contended that the trial court failed to consider their statutory rights and denied them a fair opportunity to defend the suit after the death of the original defendant.
The Court meticulously analyzed the facts and relevant statutory provisions. It held that the property was indeed self-acquired by the plaintiff and the deceased son had admitted the plaintiff's ownership in his written statement. The son's legal representatives, stepping into his shoes, were estopped from disputing the title. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to the recovery of possession.
However, the Court recognized that Mrs. Verma had resided in the property as part of the joint family and thus it constituted her shared household under Section 2(s) of the DV Act. The Court emphasized that the right of residence under Section 17(1) of the DV Act is an independent right of every woman in a domestic relationship and is not contingent upon ownership or interest in the property or the survival of the husband. Importantly, the Court referred to the Supreme Court rulings in Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi and Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja to reinforce that the death of the husband does not extinguish the daughter-in-law's right to residence in the shared household.
Further, the Court drew upon the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act to hold that the widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to maintenance, including residence, from her father-in-law if she is unable to maintain herself. The Court underscored the social and moral obligations of the father-in-law to provide shelter to the widowed daughter-in-law during his lifetime.
Balancing the proprietary rights of the plaintiff with the statutory rights of the widow, the Court modified the decree. It upheld the plaintiff's right to possession but ordered that eviction could only be executed after suitable alternate accommodation was provided to Mrs. Verma or rent equivalent to Rs. 15,000 per month was paid to her. The Court also set aside the award of mesne profits, holding that the widow could not be treated as an unauthorized occupant until alternate accommodation was secured.
This judgment affirms the principle that while property rights of owners are protected, the statutory rights of women under the DV Act and HAMA to reside in shared households and claim maintenance cannot be ignored. It also highlights the need for courts to harmonize competing rights, ensuring protection of vulnerable women without unduly infringing on property owners' rights.
Bottom Line:
Property law/Domestic Violence Act/Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act - Widowed daughter-in-law residing in father-in-law's self-acquired house can claim independent right of residence if premises constitute her shared household - Such right survives death of husband - Decree for possession in favour of owner is maintainable, but eviction must await provision of suitable alternate accommodation or payment of rent - Mesne profits not awardable in such circumstances.
Statutory provision(s):
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Sections 2(s), 17, 19, 26; Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 Sections 3(b), 19, 21, 22; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XXII Rule 4; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 116
Late Raj Kumar @ Babbal v. Sh. Attar Singh, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2995532
