Delhi and Bombay High Courts favor in-laws under Domestic Violence Act

Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra of the Delhi High Court recently held that a daughter in-law cannot book her in-laws under the Domestic Violence Act, if the parents are not living with their son and his wife.

Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra of the Delhi High Court recently held that a daughter in-law cannot book her in-laws under the Domestic Violence Act, if the parents are not living with their son and his wife.

“There can be no domestic relationship of the wife of the son with the parents when the parents are not living with the son, and there can be no domestic relationship of a wife with the parents of her husband when the son, along with the wife, is living abroad.” The court concluded that to constitute a family and domestic relationship means staying / living together under the very same roof.

“Once a son grows up and he starts earning, marries, makes his separate home and sires children, the burden of his wife cannot be put on to the shoulders of his father or brother.” Thus in the present case the daughter in-law had filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act, against her father in-law; mother in-law; brother in-law; along with her husband with whom she was staying abroad.

The woman succeeded in the lower court in attaining an order to grant her a monthly payment of Rs. 50,000 ($1082) towards maintenance. The Delhi High Court came to the in-laws' rescue in an appeal filed by the aggrieved in-laws in setting aside the lower court’s order and passing a judgment in favour of the in-laws.

In converging circumstances, the Bombay High Court has defined the concept of a matrimonial household. A house owned by a woman’s in-laws, cannot be considered a ‘shared household’. In accordance with Section 2 of the Domestic Violence Act, it protects the right of residence of estranged women in a shared household.

In the present case, the mother in-law had challenged the lower court’s decision of granting a bedroom in the matrimonial household and had restricted the entry of the in-laws (only to the extent granted to fulfil parental obligation). The mother in-law challenged the interim order in the Sessions Court which rejected her plea and approached the Bombay High Court.

The in-laws based their argument on a Supreme Court judgement which states “interim protection cannot be granted to a wife when the house belongs to the in-laws.” They contended that a separated / estranged daughter in-law had no right to enter the matrimonial home as it didn’t belong to the daughter in-law and neither her husband. 

Justice V.M. Kanade stayed the order passed by the lower court and stated “It was difficult to accept that a house owned by in-laws could be treated as a shared household. It is difficult to consider a woman’s matrimonial home as shared household if it is not owned by the husband.”

The courts are definitely moving away from the old school thought of mostly favouring the daughter in-law in matters relating to domestic violence. Both the judgements were given in the month of July this year.

The Judges are changing with the times, to aspects pertaining to matters of domestic violence. Lately it seems the courts are being broadminded in their approach as we have previously seen the Supreme Court ruling that live-in relationships are fine and also the fact that divorce has been made easy, by adding of an additional ground.