Husband in Germany, wife locks up elderly in-laws’ property: High court evicts her to restore rental income

Justice Ananda Chandra Behera pronounced the order on May 20.

The wife was seeking to quash the order passed by the sub-divisional tribunal on March 19, 2025, which directed her to vacate the ground floor within 15 days and hand over the keys to her mother-in-law.

‘Mother-in-law exclusive owner’

• The Orissa High Court noted that the property stood exclusively in the name of the mother-in-law, and that the wife had no legal interest in it.
• The court further observed that the elderly couple had alleged that the wife was disturbing their peaceful life and had kept the ground floor locked, thereby preventing them from letting it out and earning rental income for their livelihood and maintenance.
• The Orissa High Court held that the building was the self-acquired property of the mother-in-law and did not constitute the daughter-in-law’s shared household.
• Accordingly, the court upheld the tribunal’s eviction order and dismissed the writ petition filed by the wife.

‘Forcibly occupied ground floor’

• It was placed on record that the father-in-law of the petitioner is a retired government employee and a pension holder. It was added that the father-in-law and his wife are old and their present ages are 81 and 72 years, respectively.
• It was claimed that the mother-in-law has a two-storeyed building, and she and her husband are staying on its 1st floor, and they had let out the ground floor of the said building to a tenant on a monthly rent for their livelihood.
• The husband of the petitioner is staying in Germany, and he is working there as an HR professional. It was further mentioned that the daughter-in-law, the current petitioner, is herself living in her father’s house.
• It was claimed that to torture and harass the elderly couple on November 3, 2023, the petitioner forcibly occupied the ground floor of the building of her mother-in-law, driving the tenant out, and put the said ground floor under lock and key.

• Aggrieved by this, the elderly couple filed a case against their daughter-in-law and her father, praying for the protection of their lives and properties to allow them to live in peace, security and dignity. They sought to direct their daughter-in-law to vacate the ground floor of their building, along with other reliefs, to which senior citizens are entitled, as per the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
• In March 2025, the tribunal ordered the daughter-in-law to vacate the ground floor within 15 days and hand over the keys to her mother-in-law.
• However, in a separate proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act filed by the daughter-in-law, the trial court granted interim protection to the petitioner. She later relied on this order before the Orissa High Court.

‘Legal right to reside’

Appearing for the wife, advocate A K Behera contended that an interim protection order had already been passed on April 22, 2025, in favour of the petitioner under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, preventing the elderly couple from removing her from the ground floor of the said building.

The daughter-in-law further claimed that she had incurred substantial expenditure towards renovation of the ground floor and, being the wife of the elderly couple’s son, had a legal right to reside in the premises.

She also submitted that she had resigned from her employment to take care of her minor son and stayed at her father’s house only occasionally to avoid disturbances allegedly created by her in-laws, while continuing to treat the ground floor as her residence.

The senior citizens were represented by Senior Advocate S K Dash, while G Mohanty, standing counsel, appeared for the state authorities.

Son penalised for denying room to mother in family home

In an unrelated case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quoted the Upanishad while slamming a son for opposing his mother’s right to live in the familyhome and imposed costs of Rs 50,000 while calling the case a “glaring example” of a departure from the values that have formed the “foundation” of Indian society.

JusticeKuldeep Tiwari, in this matter, was hearing a petition filed by the son challenging orders which directed him to vacate one room in the family house for his mother’s residence, construct a separate bathroom and provide her with basic amenities.

Referring to the Taittiriya Upanishad (Shikshavalli 1.11.2), the Punjab and HaryanaHigh Courtstated: “Matru Devo Bhava Pitru Devo Bhava Acharya Devo Bhava Atithi Devo Bhava,” to reflect the traditional values of Indian society and the duties expected from every individual.

What led court to set aside wife’s FIR against husband, family

On May 22, the Himachal Pradesh High Courtrecently quashed an FIR lodged by a woman against her husband and his family members alleging cruelty and dowry harassment, after noting that the estranged couple had reached a settlement under which the husband would pay her Rs 24 lakh as permanentalimony.

JusticeSandeep Sharmanoted that the couple got married in 2017 and started living separately in 2022. Observing that the marriage had broken down irretrievably and that there was no possibility of reconciliation between the parties, he directed the family court concerned to consider waiving the cooling-off period while deciding their mutual-consent divorce petition.