Interim mandatory injunction over self-acquired property upheld where daughter-in-law had no residence right in the shared household claim.

An interim mandatory injunction may be granted only in exceptional cases where the applicant establishes a strong prima facie case, irreparable injury and a balance of convenience in his favour. A daughter-in-law has no enforceable right to reside in self-acquired property of the father-in-law where it is not a shared household under the Domestic Violence Act, and residence rights under matrimonial or maintenance law are generally enforceable against the husband, not parents-in-law. On these principles, the court upheld an order directing the daughter-in-law to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the property.

---

---

Issues: Whether an interim mandatory injunction could be granted directing the daughter-in-law to vacate the self-acquired property of the father-in-law pending trial.

Analysis: Interim mandatory injunction is an exceptional equitable relief, but it may be granted where the applicant shows a strong prima facie case, likelihood of irreparable injury, and balance of convenience in his favour. A daughter-in-law has no enforceable right to reside in a property that is exclusively owned by the father-in-law and does not qualify as a shared household within the meaning of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The right of residence under the matrimonial or maintenance laws is generally enforceable against the / husband and not against parents-in-law. On the facts, the property was self-acquired by the petitioner, the parties were in acute conflict, and continued joint residence would cause serious prejudice to the aged petitioner and his wife.

Conclusion: The application for interim mandatory injunction was rightly allowed, and the daughter-in-law was directed to vacate the property and hand over peaceful possession to the petitioner.

---