The Delhi High Court, in a judgment, has clarified the concept of shared household, saying that the right of a wife to live in a shared household is not an inalienable right, exercising this right, a wife cannot demand that her -in-laws should be ordered to leave the house. A similar case was filed in the Delhi High Court in which the daughter-in-law said that she was not willing to live in a shared house with her in-laws, so they should not be allowed to live in a shared house. According to the case, the woman had obtained an order from the court to stay in the shared house by applying under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. The -in-laws of the woman, who is a senior citizen, had applied to the District Magistrate under the Parents and Senior Citizens Care and Welfare Act, demanding the eviction of the daughter -in-law from the shared house. The District Magistrate had ordered the daughter-in-law to vacate the shared house on the application of senior citizens. The daughter-in-law challenged the order of the District Magistrate before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner observed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate under the Domestic Violence Act and the order passed by the District Officer under the Senior Citizens Care and Welfare Act and after hearing both the parties, the order of the District Magistrate was set aside. The Divisional Commissioner said in his order that along with the daughter-in-law, the in-laws also has the right to stay in the shared house.,The Divisional Commissioner had allowed the daughter-in-law along with her in-laws to live in the shared house. The daughter-in-law challenged the order of the Divisional Commissioner in the High Court, saying that she was not willing to live with her in-laws due to strained relations with them. She sought quashing of that part of the Divisional Commissioner's order allowing in-laws to live in the shared household. Justice Pratibha M Singh's court while hearing the petition filed by the daughter-in-law said that the contention of the petitioner that her in-laws should not be allowed to reside in her property is contrary to the established concept of shared household. The court said that the right of a daughter-in-law in a shared household is not an inalienable right. Under this right, a daughter-in-law cannot demand the exclusion of his in-laws. The in-laws told to the court that he was living in his married daughter's house and his daughter-in-law was occupying the entire house. The daughter-in-law was offered an alternate home but she refused to move to the alternate home. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment in the present case Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja which clarified the concept of shared household. The court said that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the Divisional Commissioner. The court ordered the petitioner's / daughter-in-law to stay in one bedroom and the defendants'/in-laws to stay in the other bedroom. Regarding the remaining third bedroom, the court said that the daughter-in-law's 9-year-old son would use this bedroom for his studies. Provided that the third bedroom shall be accessible for the use of both the parties. The rest of the house, kitchen, toilet, stairs, balcony, etc., can be used by both the parties. The court has also allowed the defendants to install CCTV cameras in the house so that if any party creates disturbance in the house, it can be identified.
