Mumbai: In a significant ruling, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that a woman cannot claim any right in the properties owned by her in-laws. The HC has further said a woman cannot thrust herself into her in-laws’ house, against their wishes. The ruling was delivered by a bench of Justice Arun Dhavale while dismissing a petition filed by a woman seeking orders against her father and brother-in-law.
The woman, who had no differences with her husband, had urged the bench to pass restraint orders against her in-laws. She had further urged the court to allow her and her children to reside in a house, owned by her father-in-law, at Parbhani.
Trashing her contentions, Justice Dhavale said, “If the property belongs to the joint family of which the husband or in-laws are a member then, even if the wife and the in-laws (including the husband) both having no title or right or interest in the shared household, can claim a right of residence. However, the same cannot be claimed in respect of the property owned by father-in-law, mother-in-law or any other relative of the husband exclusively.”
While citing a ruling of the apex court, Justice Dhavale said, “A woman has her right of maintenance against her husband or sons or daughters. She can assert her rights, if any, against the property of her husband, but she cannot thrust herself against the parents of her husband, nor can claim a right to live in the house of parents of her husband, against their consent and wishes.”
In his orders, Justice Dhavale noted that the petitioner woman’s husband is employed as a Sales Tax Inspector and resides at Latur and the fact that she and her two children live at Aurangabad.
“It is not a case that, she has no place for residence. She is having good relations with her husband. In the light of these facts, in absence of evidence to show that the suit house at Parbhani was an ancestral house, she was not entitled to any relief regarding residence. She can claim right to reside with her husband but when she can reside with him at Latur she can’t thrust herself in the house owned and possessed by father-in-law,” Justice Dhavale ruled.
