1. Son has no legal right to stay in parents’s house: Delhi High Court

Son has no legal right to stay in parents’s house: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High court on Tuesday directed that a son, irrespective of his marital status does not have any legal right to live in his parents' house.

By: | Published: November 29, 2016 5:38 PM
delhi high court, son can stay in parents house at their mercy, son cannot stay in parents house, son has nolegal rights in parents house, delhi high court decision Justice Pratibha Rani of the Delhi HigH Court said that if the house has been self-acquired by the parents, then the son, married or unmarried could only stay in the house at the mercy of the parents. (Reuters)

The Delhi High court on Tuesday directed that a son, irrespective of his marital status does not have any legal right to live in his parents’ house. The High court said that the son could reside in his parents’ house only at their “mercy”. The High court said the son could stay only because the parents have allowed him to stay in their house as they have cordial relations and not because they have to bear his “burden”.

Justice Pratibha Rani said that if the house has been self-acquired by the parents, then the son, married or unmarried could only stay in the house at the mercy of the parents and not because he has a legal right to. The High court gave this judgement 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.

The sons and the daughters-in-law had then contested the lawsuit in front of the trial court said that they were the co-owners of the house and had contributions in its purchase and construction. The trial court had however ruled the decision in the favour of the parents, following which the son and his wife had moved to the High court. The High Court Justice, Pratibha Rani on Tuesday noted that the son and his wife had failed to prove that they too had contributions in the purchase of the house, while the parents had established their contention by revealing the necessary documents.

  1. V
    Vijay
    Nov 29, 2016 at 3:25 pm
    Good descision by delhi high court
    Reply
    1. R
      Rattan Sharma
      Dec 1, 2016 at 6:58 am
      A decent judgement given by the judge in favour of the old parents. In these days, young generation do not take care of their parents. The parents should execute a "WILL" of their entire property so as to debar son and daughter-in-law to claim the right of their property after the death.
      Reply
      1. Akshaj Padma
        Nov 30, 2016 at 4:55 am
        I respect the decision taken by Delhi Court.Very good decision.son who is not in a position to take care of parents, whether is married or not but still should not be a part of parented house. parents are everything for the son but not the parented property.Very good.....*****
        Reply
        1. A
          ankit kumar
          Nov 30, 2016 at 3:20 pm
          what will the court say if a case comes when the son has voluntarily left the house acquired by parents who are old and needing help as there is no legal obligation for them to live(infact it's at their mercy).
          Reply
          1. A
            Ashish
            Nov 30, 2016 at 8:31 am
            Good discussion
            Reply
            1. C
              ckm
              Nov 29, 2016 at 2:53 pm
              Adult son has a nuisance value; add a wife to the mix and you have a living on earth. If the son is not taking care of the parents, then why he wants to be a burden on them?
              Reply
              1. D
                Dipak D
                Nov 29, 2016 at 2:05 pm
                Very important law point
                Reply
                1. I
                  irfan
                  Dec 3, 2016 at 9:46 am
                  Awesome Decision Long live Justice Pratibha Rani madam...Yes please save indian families... girls this days becoming like evils and harrshing old people
                  Reply
                  1. P
                    prabhu
                    Dec 1, 2016 at 11:01 am
                    Grateful to the High court for its kind Judgement. Should be an eye opener for those who harm parents. Parents should be appreciated for taking up the matter with High Court. They are not helping themselves, but all those parents who are suffering at the hands of their children.
                    Reply
                    1. Jawaid Mir
                      Nov 29, 2016 at 2:19 pm
                      This is harsh.....
                      Reply
                      1. B
                        babu
                        Nov 30, 2016 at 9:09 pm
                        What about those less fortunate sons who was born out of an illegitimate relationship between the so called "victim" father and someone not married to him? What is the child's fault so that he cannot claim from his biological father his dues, especially when in cases where the so called father is a scoundrel and a habitual infidel? Justice Pratibha Rani's judgement is very illogical and partial to the concept of an ideal father, which every father is not.
                        Reply
                        1. S
                          Shree
                          Nov 30, 2016 at 10:11 am
                          Matru & Pitru deva bhava...... But i think it is confusing & poor decision.. opps sorry not decision .... its a "judgement".......which is based upon case to case........
                          Reply
                          1. S
                            Shree
                            Nov 30, 2016 at 9:58 am
                            Matru & Pitru deva bhava...... But i think it is confusing & poor decision.. opps sorry not decision .... its a "judgement".......which is based upon case to case... So guys don't jump to conclusion directly. Even son has also no doentary binding or (right ?) to take care of his parents.... So pls don't co-relate this with another existing cases... I
                            Reply
                            1. V
                              veena
                              Dec 19, 2016 at 8:30 am
                              definately a wrong decision , this will discourage all the sons and daughter in laws to take care of their in laws or parents even if they have no badthe old people today are getiing very r intention., yet another factor what will they do when they get old who will take care of them ????? people who believed their parents and invested money in the house for extention renovation and all regular expenses what happens to that ?????/not alll sons are bad and not all old people are good pls remember that . parents are childrens responsibilities and therefore should not be deserted but children are not parents responsibilities ...SAD..... the younger generation is at loss
                              Reply
                              1. V
                                Vishwanath Hippargi
                                Nov 30, 2016 at 12:09 pm
                                Very Good decision
                                Reply
                                1. Load More Comments

                                Go to Top