In Brief
A father-in-law sought to evict his daughter-in-law from his property, claiming it was his self-acquired asset. The daughter-in-law, engaged in divorce proceedings with his son, had filed a domestic violence complaint claiming right to reside in the shared household. The Supreme Court held that the definition of 'shared household' is not limited to properties solely owned by the husband; it extends to any household where the aggrieved person lives in a domestic relationship, including those owned by in-laws. The Court found the trial court erred in dismissing the daughter-in-law's claim under Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act without hearing evidence. While civil suits for eviction remain maintainable, courts must balance competing rights. The Court clarified that domestic violence proceedings and civil suits are independent; orders from one forum are relevant but not binding on the other.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.