While setting aside the order of a magisterial court, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala allowed the appeal filed by the woman's parents-in-law, saying that she is entitled to claim a right to residence in a house only if it is her husband's property or if he has a share in it.
Relying on a Supreme Court verdict, the judge said, "It is held that the daughter-in-law has no right in a property which exclusively belongs to her parents-in-law and such a property cannot be treated as a shared accommodation."
The court remanded the case back to the magisterial court to decide the woman's claim regarding her right to residence afresh and directed her and the parents-in-law to appear before it.
The appeal was filed by the parents-in-law of the woman against the trial court's order in a domestic violence case in which they were directed to allow her re-entry in their house considering it as shared household.
In their appeal filed against a Mahila Court order, the parents-in-law of the woman had denied her allegation of torture or demand of dowry and claimed that her father in-law is the absolute owner of the property.
They had further contended that the property is not a shared household property as considered by the trial court because the husband of the applicant has no right, share or title in it.