Advocate A. K. Sawhney
The landscape of family law in India continues to evolve, and one of the most striking developments in recent years concerns the rights of adult married children to reside in the home of their parents. Courts across the country have gradually shifted their approach, recognising the autonomy of parents over their self acquired property and reinforcing that adult sons, daughters, and their spouses cannot insist on residence in the parental home as a matter of right. This development is especially significant in cases emerging under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, a legislation that had long been interpreted in a manner that tilted the balance of residence rights in favour of the daughter in law. The new direction recognises the dignity, peace of mind, and property rights of elderly parents as equally important.
In earlier years, the general understanding was that a daughter in law who alleged domestic violence could claim the right to reside in the matrimonial home, even when such home was owned by the parents in law. Courts frequently held that such residence amounted to shared household under the Act. However, after years of litigation and misuse of this provision in some cases, courts have begun to clarify and, where necessary, correct the legal position. The shift does not dilute the protection available to women facing actual violence. Rather, it prevents unnecessary hardship to parents in law who may find themselves dragged into disputes between husband and wife and subjected to prolonged harassment. The most recent judgments from various High Courts and the Supreme Court mark a significant change. Courts now hold that a daughter in law has no inherent right to live in the self acquired property of her in laws. The right to reside in a shared household does not extend to property that is exclusively owned by the parents of the husband, unless such parents expressly permit the couple to live there. Consequently, several courts have begun issuing clear injunctions restraining daughters in law and even sons from occupying such premises without the consent of the real owners.
A notable example comes from the High Court of Rajasthan, which dealt firmly with a case where a son had initiated litigation against his own father. The court observed that the son had filed the case purely to harass his father and create pressure regarding the father’s self acquired property. Since the property belonged exclusively to the father, the son had no legal right to remain there or claim any share during the father’s lifetime. In a strong message against frivolous litigation, the court imposed a cost of one lakh rupees on the son for filing a baseless case and attempting to misuse the judicial process. The court also passed an injunction directing the eviction of the son and restraining him from asserting any right over the property.
The Supreme Court has also weighed in on this issue, clarifying that while parents may, out of goodwill, allow their son and daughter in law to reside with them, such permission does not create an enforceable legal right. If the daughter in law creates nuisance, disturbs the peace of the household, or misuses the residence provision of the Domestic Violence Act, the parents in law can seek legal remedies. Courts have the power to evict her through appropriate injunctions. In some cases even parents of the daughter in law have been restrained where they have interfered or contributed to the disturbance.
These judgments collectively reaffirm a basic principle. The right to property includes the right to peaceful possession and the right to decide who may or may not reside within it. Adult married children, despite cultural expectations, cannot force themselves upon their parents. As society changes and joint families become less common, the law is aligning itself with the realities of modern living. The courts have made it clear that respect, not coercion, must form the foundation of family relationships.
