The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has ruled that a widowed sister-in-law cannot claim residence rights in a portion of property that has been validly bequeathed through a Will. While upholding her limited right to reside in the “shared household,” the Court carefully modified the order to ensure the applicant brother’s property rights are respected.
Brief Facts of the Case
- The applicant, Ashish Chandrakant Chauhan, owned the ground floor of a house through a registered Will executed by his mother in 2004.
- His brother, Mukesh Chauhan, was allotted the first floor. Mukesh’s wife (Mohini – Respondent No.1) and son (Respondent No.2) tried to claim residence rights after Mukesh’s death in 2008.
- The Respondents sought relief under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), claiming that they were being wrongfully prevented from entering the house.
- The Trial Court dismissed the DV petition.
- On appeal, the Sessions Court allowed the widow and her son to stay on the ground floor and imposed costs of ₹20,000 on the applicant.
- The applicant challenged this order in revision before the High Court.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 2(a), 2(f), 2(s) – Definitions of “aggrieved person,” “domestic relationship,” and “shared household.”
- Section 3 – Domestic violence includes economic abuse such as deprivation of residence.
- Section 12 & 17 – Right of an aggrieved woman to approach Magistrate and claim residence in the shared household.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant (Ashish Chauhan):
- The Respondent had not lived in the property since 2004.
- Mukesh and Mohini had even executed a divorce deed in 2007 (though not through court).
- Since the DV Act came into force only in 2005, it could not apply to past disputes.
- Relied on S.R. Batra vs. Taruna Batra (2007) to argue that a widowed daughter-in-law has no right in in-laws’ self-acquired property.
Respondents (Mohini and son):
- Claimed to have lived in the shared household earlier.
- Argued that under the DV Act, even past cohabitation is sufficient to invoke residence rights.
- Relied on Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi (2023), which gave expansive interpretation to “domestic relationship” and “shared household.”
Court’s Observations
- The DV Act protects not only subsisting but also past domestic relationships.
- The words “has lived” in the Act show that even past residence creates rights of residence.
- The alleged divorce deed had no legal sanctity as only a competent court can dissolve a marriage.
- However, the Will executed by the mother in 2004 was valid and binding. Since the ground floor was bequeathed to the applicant, the Respondent cannot claim it.
- Therefore, residence rights, if any, could only extend to the first floor, which was allotted to Mukesh.
Conclusion of the Judgment
The High Court modified the Sessions Court’s order and directed that Mohini (widow) and her son can only reside on the first floor of the property as per the Will. The applicant’s ground floor ownership was upheld.
Comments from the author of this website
When I read through this case, what strikes me most is how casually the DV Act is being misused to settle property disputes. A law that was meant to protect genuine victims of violence is now being stretched so far that even distant, past cohabitation is used as a weapon against rightful owners of property.
Let’s be honest — here was a man who had his mother’s Will in his favour, who lawfully inherited what was his, and yet he was forced to go through years of litigation simply because the law allows anyone with a past relationship to drag you into court. This is not justice; this is harassment packaged as “protection.”
The broader danger is that men’s hard-earned assets are constantly at risk. Even when ownership is crystal clear, as in this case, claims continue to pour in under the DV Act. The law doesn’t differentiate between genuine victims and opportunistic claims — and men end up paying the price, not just in money, but in peace of mind, time, and reputation.
What bothers me further is the imbalance — property rights, inheritance, and even a man’s personal space are often disregarded in the rush to “protect.” It’s almost as if sympathy has replaced fairness in our legal system.
Final Thoughts
This judgment was absolutely necessary — not because it gave one side a victory, but because it restored some balance. Laws should protect the vulnerable, yes, but not at the cost of trampling over the rights of others. If we keep allowing emotions to overshadow evidence, men will always remain soft targets. It’s high time the system recognises that fairness cannot be one-sided — justice must mean justice for all.
Read Complete Judgement Here