Delhi High Court: Daughter in law can't claim right to live in In-Law House

Delhi High Court has held that the old parents whose relations with their son and daughter-in law turn sour have every right to show them the door and the daughter-in law cannot claim any right to stay in their house claiming to be having a legal right to live in the matrimonial home.

Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra observed,"that the matrimonial home may not necessarily mean the house of the parents of the husband. In fact the parents can allow the children to live in the house as long as their relations are cordial and full of love and affection with them."

Matrimonial home is not merely a dwelling unit. It is a place used by husband and wife for dwelling, Justice Dhingra said.

In the present case, an old couple staying in Ashok Vihar filed a suit in the Delhi High Court stating that their daughter-in-law forcibly wants to stay in their house whereas she has her own house in Rohini. The parents of one Vikas Mittal who stay in Ashok Vihar had separated from their son. The son purchased a flat in Rohini.The daughter-in-law stated that the house in Rohini is not habitable with no cooler, fan and claimed a right to live in her parents-in-law's house at Ashok Vihar. The daughter-in-law Neetu Mittal referred to the protection of women from domestic violence act and claimed right to live in the Ashok Vihar house stating the right to live in the Matrimonial home.

The Court observed that the parents who are ill and suffering from various ailments have every right to live peacefully. Since their relations with the son and daughter-in-law are not cordial there is every likelihood of breach of peace detrimental to their mental and physical health. The Court observed that due regard has been given to the parent's rights as it is established that they cannot live together under one roof.

The Court held that once a person gains maturity, parents have no liability to sustain him. It is a different thing that out of love and affection parents can support the son but there is no legal liability on them. The Court dismissed the daughter-in-law's claim of the right to live in the matrimonial home of the parents and held the rights of the parents above her rights.

GRANT BAIL ONLY FOR GOOD REASON: SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court while deciding Lokesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. on 21st oct, 2008, has said that the bail granted to the accused is liable to be set aside if the adequate reasons for granting it are not laid out by the court.

While dealing with an application for bail, bench comprising Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice C K Thakker said:there is a need to indicate the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted where an accused was charged of having committed a serious It is necessary for the courts dealing with application for bail to among other circumstances, the following factors also before bail, they are:

1. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;
2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
3. Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

Any order de hors such reasons suffers from non-application of mind was noted by this Court, in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh Ors. [(2002) 3 SCC 598], Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr. Etc. [(2001) SCC 338)] and in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu & Anr. [JT 2004 (3) SC 442].

Though a conclusive finding in regard to the points urged by the parties is not expected of the Court considering the bail application, yet reasons is different from discussing merits or demerits. As noted at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and
documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. that does not mean that while granting bail some reasons for prima facie why bail was being granted is not required to be indicated.

The court cancelling the bail of an accused said that at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. But that does not mean that while granting bail some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted is not required to be indicated, observed court.

The apex court said that the accused released on bail shall surrender to custody forthwith.

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court had granted bail to an accused facing trial for an alleged murder and Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.

JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NOT BARRED:SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court has held in the case of RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION & ANR. vs. BAL MUKUND BAIRWA decided on 12/02/2009 that the jurisdiction of a civil court in an industrial dispute is not barred in case the dispute relates to violation of fundamental rights of a workman or the violation of general law of contract is involved.

The three-judge bench, comprising Justices S B Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma and Asok Kumar Ganguly, in their judgment noted, The purpose of principles of natural justice is prevention of miscarriage of justice and hence the observance thereof is a pragmatic requirement of fair play in action.

The jurisdiction of a civil court is governed by Section 9 of the of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:
 "9 - Courts to try all civil suits unless barred:-The Courts shall (subject to the
provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature
excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred."

The jurisdiction of the Civil Court in terms of the aforementioned is a plenary one. The provision relating to bar to entertain a must therefore be laid down by a statute either expressly or by implication. An employee charged with grave acts of must be held to be entitled to a fair hearing in the proceeding. The common law principles of natural justice also be complied with. Rules laid down in the statutory rules should be followed.

Section 9 of the Code is in enforcement of the fundamental of law laid down in the maxim Ubi jus Ibi remedium. A thus, having a grievance of a civil nature has a right to institute a suit in a competent civil court unless its cognizance is either or impliedly barred by any statute. Ex facie, in terms of section of the Code, civil courts can try all suits, unless bared by either expressly or by necessary implication.

The civil court, furthermore, being a court of plenary jurisdiction the jurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction upon considering the made in the plaint but that would not mean that the plaintiff
circumvent the provisions of law in order to invest jurisdiction on the court although it otherwise may not possess. For the said purpose, court in given cases would be entitled to decide the question of its jurisdiction upon arriving at a finding in regard to the existence of jurisdictional fact. It is also well settled that there is a presumption a civil court will have jurisdiction and the ouster of civil court's is not to be readily inferred. A person taking a plea contra establish the same. Even in a case where jurisdiction of a civil court sought to be barred under a statute, the civil court can exercise its jurisdiction in respect of some matters particularly when the statutory
or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction.

In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, it would not be correct to contend that only because the employee concerned is also a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the 1947 Act or the conditions of the service are otherwise governed by the Standing Order certified under the 1946 Act ipso facto the civil court will have no jurisdiction.

The apex court also noted, �if the infringement of Standing Order or other provisions of the industrial disputes act are alleged, the civil courts jurisdiction may be held to be barred but if the suit is based on the violation of principles of common law or constitutional provisions or on other grounds, the civil courts jurisdiction may not be held to be barred.

The objection to the maintainability of the civil suit filed by Balmukund Birwa and others was raised by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The two judge bench of the Supreme Court vide order dated November 22, 2007 had referred the case to three-judge bench for deciding the issue whether the civil court is completely debarred for entertaining a suit involving a dispute between the employer and the workman.

The apex court also held that it is a settled law that if a court decides a mater without jurisdiction, the decision, or the decree passed by such court would be a nullity and the jurisdiction cannot be conferred on a court either by the court order or through the mutual consent of the parties.