The ruling comes in the wake of a suit filed by Aristonic J R Almeida against his daughter-in-law Karen and son Athlone. The plaintiff is a retired Mumbaiite who owns a two-room flat on Juhu Tara Road. He complained that he and his wife were unable to live in the flat due to continued disputes between his son and daughter-in-law. He asked the court to restrain Karen from entering and living in his house. Son Athlone supported his father and gave examples of Karen'sbehaviour.

But Karen's affidavit claims otherwise. She told the court that she caused injury to her husband only after he physically assaulted her. According to Karen, the suit has been filed by her father-in-law on her husband's instigation, especially since the former never attempted to settle the squabbles between the husband and wife.

Judge Vacha ruled that it is advisable to avoid future complications in Almeida's life by restraining Karen from entering his home. The judge cited a Supreme Court order which observes that ``A person residing in the house as a family member, (nothing more or nothing less), cannot claim legal character, much less the character of a licensee.''

The plaintiff also relied on another SC ruling in which a 79-year old Homai Burjor Mehta, owner of a flat in south Mumbai, was allowed to restrain her daughter-in-law from entering the premises. ``Apellant has no legal right on the mother-in-laws' house. In view of the hostility between the parties and criminal complaints to thepolice, they cannot stay together.'' observed the SC direction.

In this particular case, relations between Homai Mehta and her daughter-in-law Maharukh were strained. According to Homai, Maharukh was abnormally cruel towards her husband and two daughters. A suit was filed in the High Court and the custody of the daughters granted to her husband. Maharukh then agreed to reside with her husband and mother-in-law, despite her initial hesitation. According to the mother-in-law, Maharukh threatened her with ``such harassment as would cause her a heart attack''. Homai then moved the trial court, which upheld her right to peaceful occupation of the flat. Maharukh appealed against this order in the apex court, but her Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Karen Almeida's advocate Y D Mulani has decided to appeal against the trial court order in the Bombay High Court. ``Just because Karen's husband does not own the family flat, she cannot be shooed away in an advanced stage of pregnancy. Moreover, such cases canprove bad precedents for those families who need a reason to sever ties with their daughters-in-law. A minor squabble can be deliberately blown out of proportion to achieve the desired goal. That is why we will pursue this case to its logical end,'' Mulani told Express Newsline.