The Delhi High Court this month in a recent judgment has held that a son married or unmarried has no legal right to reside in the house of his parents but can stay with them only at their mercy. Justice Pratibha Rani has put her foot down on the proposition that the son can stay with his parents as long as they enjoy cordial relations with him and not because they have to bear his burden. The High court gave this judgment as it was dismissing an appeal made by a husband and wife who had challenged a trial court's order that had gone in the favour of the parents who had filed a law suit seeking the court's orders for their son and daughter-in-law to vacate the house in their possession. The concerned parents had filed complaints at the police station stating that their son and daughter-in-law had made their "life hell". They had also issued public notices in 2007 and 2012 about debarring the son and his wife from their self-acquired property. They filed a suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing them to vacate the floors in their possession. The children, in any case, denied the affirmations and fought that they were the co-proprietors of the property as they had contributed towards its purchase and construction. The court, however, decreed in favour of the parents, which was challenged by the children in the high court. The court expelled the case and held that the applicants had neglected to demonstrate their co-possession in the suit property and the guardians had sufficiently demonstrated that the property had a place with them through documentary evidence.
The judgment read as, "Where the house is self-acquired house of the parents, son whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to live in that house and he can live in that house only at the mercy of his parents up to the time the parents allow."
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
