Right of residence in a shared household ceases against in-laws upon termination of husband's license.

The Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1), Meera Batra, claimed absolute ownership of the suit property (Ground Floor, 2-A/44, Ramesh Nagar) through a Will dated 06.02.2012 executed by her late mother, Smt. Maya Devi

After the mother's demise, the Plaintiff permitted her brother, Defendant No. 1 (Respondent No. 2), to reside on the ground floor as a licensee

In 2012, Defendant No. 1 married the Appellant (Defendant No. 2), and they resided together in the property

Following alleged harassment and matrimonial discord, the Plaintiff terminated the license via legal notice dated 02.07.2015

Defendant No. 1 vacated the premises, but the Appellant refused to leave, claiming the property was her "shared household" and matrimonial home

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff, directing the delivery of vacant possession

The Court primarily applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the requirements for a Regular Second Appeal

principles governing "shared households" under the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), specifically referencing Satish Chand Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020) to determine the weight of residence orders in civil proceedings

Section 26 of the DV Act was applied, which permits the seeking of reliefs under the Act in any legal proceeding before a civil or family court

aw of licenses under the Indian Easements Act, whereby a licensee’s right ceases upon revocation by the owner

The Court observed that the Plaintiff’s ownership was established via a duly proved Will

Since Defendant No. 1 (the husband) was a mere licensee and had vacated the property, the Appellant’s status was reduced to that of a trespasser, as her right to stay was derivative of her husband’s license

Regarding the DV Act claims, the Court found no "domestic relationship" between the Appellant and her sister-in-law (the Plaintiff), as they never resided together in a joint household or shared a kitchen

The Court held that while Section 26 of the DV Act allows civil courts to consider residence rights, the Appellant failed to prove the property was a "shared household" belonging to the husband or a joint family

The Court dismissed the "collusion" argument, noting that the Appellant’s remedy for residence lies against her husband in her pending DV Act proceedings, not against the sister-in-law who allowed them to stay in good faith

The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and the Appellant has no independent legal right to occupy the premises

matrimonial discord between spouses cannot result in a "penalty" for a third-party relative (the sister-in-law) who owns the property

The decree for mandatory and permanent injunction was upheld, directing the Appellant to handover vacant and peaceful possession