Injunction case

Yes !! Daughter in law is having no right to reside at the property of her father in law. Under Odr 39 of CPC an temporary injunction order can be taken if prima facie the case is in the favour of the Petitioner. Daughter in law is having right to live only where her husband resides; in case the husband resides with his father and on his property the daughter in law also enjoyed the same right with the licence to reside as the son is to father. In that case son also is to be ordered to live sepearte from the property of his father. Definition of the matrimonial home is the place where the husband resides, in this case. So if the property is an ancestral one with a share of the son in it the daughter in law has the right to reside else not.

As far as the papers are concerned to be submitted with the 39 application for injunction. the papers of the ownership with the supporting documents of the bills of the electricity, gas and water are to be submitted to prove the claim ownership of the property or a rent agreement in case of the rented accomodation are to be submitted with the petition. Plus a notice for withdrawing the kicence to reside of the son and the daughter in law is to be attached to it as to withdraw the resident rights.

@ anand bali: thank you for your advice.. My father inlaw has not issued any notice/article in the newspaper that me and my husband has no right to live in my matrimonial home.. in 2014-2015 my husband came to live with me in my matrimonial home.. injunction case was filed in 2016..but my father inlaw has hidden this fact that his son was living with him till 2015.. at the end of the year 2015 my husband started residing at his rent house.. but my father inlaw has not disowned his son from the property.. also my father inlaw's sister has filed a property case in the high court for partition of suit..she is claiming for a share in the property and in high court it has been accepted that my father inlaw has no ownership.. but yes my sasur has been paying the electricity bills..water bills etc.. also i have an order under donestic violence case that i have a right to live in my matrimonial home bcz at the time of filing of the case i was at my parents house but my husband was living with his father.. presently i am in my matrimonial home.. i am worried for order 39 application filed by my sasur for taking interim orders for my eviction.. but i will submit the documents proving that his property case is going on in high court .. so will this point help ??

Your father-in-law is step ahead in this case. As long as he proves that it is self earned not ancestary (taxation filed by him. original khata with him) he may chose to go legal way to evict whomever he wishes.

Disowning is more done as precautionary way to prevent daughter-in-law attaching proerty in her claim in DV case. But this option has staled in court of law. And Not disowning actually work with him.

His argument would be he is protecting his right to live .

Any other case would benefical if judgment is ruled against him, which isn't the case. He may argue it is all misconception and say he will win against his sister claims as well.

 

If his siter wins case, then it will bounce you off..as the case proves it is ancestral property and you have no claim...

 

 

He may have provided shelter to his son in 2015. The fact that there was marital home and you both resided nulls are other objection.

 

Your FIL has done better interms of legal option...You may have to look somewhere else to earn jam for your bread.

 

@ whatnot: do not use this line "earn jam for your bread ".. am not like other girls who run after the property out of greed.. i have no other place to live.. my parents are not rich enough to take my responsibility. I dnt want a divorce.. i can't live on rent as its too unsafe for any lady to live alone.. before comenting u need to think.. i have won a case against my inlaws in the district court.. however as of now evidence stage is yet to come under injunction case..so am hoping that the judge will understand the facts then.. 2ndly its a well settled law that in an ancestral property the grandson has a share in the property so automatically his wife also has.. so if my sasur loses the case against his sister then it vl be good for me bcz even the injunction judge has said that i need to prove that the property is ancestral.. den it vl help me.. also kindly dnt reply on my queries bcz ur answer seems to be in frustration ..its not a proper legal advice.. so you shud just shut up.. thanks.. do not reply now bcz you have given me a mental torture with your reply.. am.already very tensed.. so dnt reply vth ur rude and meaningless reply

@querist,

We are best judge for other actions and good lawyer for self.

It is open forum and it is always advised to take opinion with bit of salt.

We may fight over 'meaning' of law, but matter of the fact is nuanaces of law it realm of its own and Judge will decipher the way it stated.

You should be glad your father-in-law is still within means of legal ways and pursuing his intrestes.

Should he approach somone who 'understands' law, it would be case of you finding bread itself.

 

Having said wish you all the best.

You should show or submit the Order of court in your DV case to the judge dealing with injunction case.  You would not get any share in property, your right is limited to residence at father in law's house. As the property is already in his possession what more he wants to possess I couldn't understand. However, it is clear that you are not stranger trespassing into his property. You are staying there as per Court order only.

 

In this background, if the judge has to give eviction order he should be forced to explain why the Right to residence order passed by DV judge is bad in the eyes of law. Without explaining that he can't issue eviction order as if you are stranger-cum-trespasser to his property. 

 

It is not a property issue, it is a matrimonial issue. Whether it is ancestral property or self acquired property has no bearing on this issue. The only issue here is whether it is your matrimonial home or not. That question would have already been answered by DV judge. So in my view the best way to deal is to ask the judge of civil court dealing with injunction case to first consider why the judgment of DV judge is bad in law. 

Dear Shivani,

 Every wife has right to reside with her husband or at the property of her husband otherwise it is a burden of the husband that he should provide her an accomodation of the same level which she was enjopying after her marriage with him.

 

You are right in this way, try to findout the case results of propeerty case which your inlaws is fighting with her sister for the ancestral property as you have mentioned and let it be decided that it is an ancestral property where your husband is having right in shape of share. Out of that share yor maintenance accommodation requirements will be fullfilled. But please understand you will only have share in your name after your husband'd demice as a legal heir appatent.

Anand Bali, Adv.

Supreme Court of India

@ Anjuru: thank you very much for the advice.. you got my query right.. you are right.. i don't want any share in the property.. i just want to live in my room till the time all the cases go on.. my father inlaw now wants the possession of my room also.. he has also filed a prayer asking for recovery i.e. the electricity dat am using.. water etc.. yes am staying here as per the court order.. he always says that i trespassed however the dvact judge has mentioned in the order that the moment i re-entered my matrimonial home i had informed the court about this through an application properly.. and yes the dvact judge has accepted that it is my matrimonial home and my sharedhousehold also.. at the evidence stage and cross-examine stage i will raise these points that the judge must consider the dvact order also.. thank you so much.. you have advised me really well.. can you please give an idea how long the injunction case goes on ? Just an estimate.. on my next hearing matter is listed for framing of issues.. will it take another 5 years in the trial court for the verdict or less than that ??

@ anand bali : thank you for your advice.. probably things will get clear at the evidence and criss-examine stage.. i just want to live in my room of my matrimonial home. I dnt wish to stay on rent at all.. i hope that the judge asks for the proper registered documents..

@Shivani, Yes in fact the court wants to establish the nature if the property if it is an ancestral one your husband's share must be there. In cross examination of the Witness ( Your Father In Law) You can clearly ask him that how does he has acquire this particular property whether by his own earned income or by inheritence?

Good Luck !! 

@ anand bali: yes.. although my father inlaw has mentioned in the injunction petition that the property was purchased by his father.. his father died without making a will.. so automatically property now belongs to him.. he says that since the mutation is on his name as he has to pay the house tax etc so now he becomes the owner.. but just because mutation is on his name for paying the house tax/ property tax dat doesn't mean that he is the owner of this house.. also his property case is pending in the high court.. its going to be a long legal battle. Things vl get clear only at the cross-examine stage..

Can't say unless we see entire file.

In my view you are least bothered whether it is Ancestral property or not. What is important for you is : 

 

Whether your husband and father in law were United at the time of marriage and have shown a matrimonial home to you in your father in law's house? If answer is yes you have a right of residence in it.

 

It could be the case that later due to strained relationship with his father your husband may be living separately in rented accommodation. How ever it can't be anybody's case to say that my father's father has died intestate and hence I have a share in it but without claiming it, despite strained relationship with father, I am living in rented house.

 

That is purely intended for miscarriage of justice. If you have strained relationship fight for your share if you don't have strained relationship live with him. It can't be said that I have strained relationship with father yet I live in rented house without claiming share, and as I live in rented house my wife, like Sati savitri follow me to live in rented house.

 

It is another thing if he has been living away from father's house on job purpose. Then you have to follow wherever he goes, then in such case you have no right of residence in father in law's property. However he has managed to get some job fetching Rd.10000 per month and is showing to court that because of low salary he is staying in one room only if wife wants I can give place to her in that room that is intended to miscarry justice to achieve illegal purposes which cause temporary hardship to him but once you are out of his life father and son unite and he will begin to enjoy father's property.

 

If this is situation you should argue that he is temporarily showing strained relationship with father but the aim is to cheat me. And so court should not believe that a man who can get share in grand father's property will, without filing partition suit, would simply live in a rented house. As good amount of manipulation is visible I am eligible to stay in such house that befits my husband's status that he along with father in law have assured at the time of marriage.

 

Hope you understand this.

 

 

@ anjuru: thans a lot for your advice.. you have understood my query and situation perfectly.. yes at the time of marriage my husband bought me directly to my matrimonial home and all of us lived together.. later when all the problems started he shifted to a rent accomodation but dats just his game plan.. my husband meets his entire family outside.. like in february 2017 he went for a family wedding with the entire family.. i can prove that a little.. he goes with his family for birthdays, dinners etc.. so 100%.living on rent is his game plan.. he meets his family quiet often but somewhere outside.. also in my matrimonial home 1st floor and 2nd floor is also there.. however tenants live der bcz my father inlaw got that area constructed in 90's so ghar ke expenses rent amount pe chaltey hain.. so my husband can live der rather than staying on rent.. so lets see how much the judge understands der manipulation and games..