Delhi HC issues guidelines to balance rights of daughter-in-law under DV Act and in-laws under Senior Citizens Act

Observing that the right of residence of the daughter-in-law needs to be balanced with the right of the peaceful living of the in-laws, the Delhi High Court has issued broad guidelines to strike a balance between The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (PSC Act) and The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act)..The Guidelines are as follows:.The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the son’s/ daughter’s family.If the case involves eviction of a daughter in law, the court has to also ascertain whether the daughter-in-law was living as part of a joint family.If the relationship is acrimonious, then the parents ought to be permitted to seek eviction of the son/daughter-in-law or daughter/son in-law from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife would continue in terms of the principles under the DV Act.If the relationship between the parents and the son is peaceful or if the parents are seen colluding with their son, then an obligation to maintain and to provide for the shelter for the daughter-in-law would remain both upon the in-laws and the husband especially if they were living as part of a joint family. In such a situation, while parents would be entitled to seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from their property, an alternative reasonable accommodation would have to be provided to her.In case the son or his family is ill-treating the parents then the parents would be entitled to seek unconditional eviction from their property so that they can live a peaceful life and also put the property to use for their generating income and for their own expenses for daily living.If the son has abandoned both the parents and his own wife/children then if the son’s family was living as part of a joint family prior to the breakdown of relationships, the parents would be entitled to seek possession from their daughter-in-law, however, for a reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the daughter-in-law during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband..The directions were passed by Single Judge Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh in a challenge to an order passed by a Trial Court in a case concerning the eviction of a daughter-in-law from her matrimonial home..The petitioner was the father-in-law and the respondent was the daughter in law. The petitioner along with his wife, son, and daughter resided in a property in New Delhi’s Safdarjung Enclave which belonged to his father-in-law..After acrimony occurred between the son and daughter-in-law, the son left the Safdarjung house and allegedly started staying with his grand-parents in Saket, New Delhi. Subsequently, the father-in-law filed a suit for a mandatory injunction before a Senior Civil Judge against the daughter-in-law..In her written statement before the Civil Judge, the daughter-in-law did not dispute that the property was owned by the father-in-law of the petitioner but merely stated that no documents were placed on record to show the ownership or the arrangement..According to the petitioner, since there was an admission on part of the daughter-in-law that the property did not belong to her or to her father-in-law, the Safdarjung property could not be treated as ‘shared household’ under the DV Act and she ought to be evicted..The Trial Court, however, rejected the plea for a mandatory injunction and held that since the suit property was the matrimonial house, the daughter-in-law had a right to reside in the same till the subsistence of the marriage..Aggrieved by the Order, the father-in-law moved the High Court..Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the application was wrongly rejected as the daughter-in-law had not disputed the fact that the property did not belong to her husband and in fact also did not belong to her in-laws either..On the other hand, the respondent/ daughter-in-law submitted that the son was in collusion with the parents and was, in fact, living in the Safdarjung property. Thus the property continued to be her matrimonial home..After hearing the parties, the Court analysed at length the law concerning ‘shared household’ as discussed in a catena of judgments by the Supreme Court and several High Courts..The Court observed that while DV Act was meant to protect one of the three basic necessities of human life – viz. shelter, for the woman, the PSC Act was enacted to ensure that parents and senior citizens were not subjected to harassment by their children in any manner..“The question, however, is as to how the objectives and provisions of these two Acts are to operate, considering the overlapping nature of the relationships which they seek to govern. Both are special statutes..”, the Court remarked..The Court noted that although in Supreme Court’s judgment in BS Batra vs Taruna Batra the Court had held that “shared household” would not include property belonging to the relatives of the husband namely, the in-laws, later decisions of various High Courts delivered divergent opinions on the concept of “shared household” and protected the interest of the daughter-in-law..It was thus concluded that the ultimate question for consideration was whether the obligation of providing the shelter or roof was upon the in-laws or upon the husband of the daughter-in-law i.e., the son..To answer the same, the Court formulated the above-mentioned guidelines for courts to follow and strike a balance between two warring parties, namely the parents/in-laws and children/their families..It observed that while the right of residence of the daughter-in-law is to be recognized, the same also needs to be balanced depending upon the facts of each case with the right of the peaceful living of the parents as well..“..the said two statutes i.e., the DV Act and the PSC Act, would have to be borne in mind while passing orders, maintaining the balance between two warring parties, namely the parents/in-laws and children/their families. The conflict between the rights of the parents and the rights of the daughter-in-law which have arisen out of the DV Act and the PSC Act requires to be resolved.”.Coming to the facts of the case, the Court concluded that by any stretch of the imagination, the Safdarjung property could not be called a `shared household‟ under Section 2(s) of the DV Act..Insofar as the question of admission was concerned, the Court held that there was no admission by the daughter-in-law and she had, in fact, challenged the rights of the father-in-law to maintain the suit..Given the fact that the relationship between the in-laws and the son was not acrimonious and the daughter-in-law had been living with her in-laws till disputes arose between her and her husband, the Court opined that a mechanism ought to be devised to ensure that both the in-laws and the daughter-in-law lived peacefully while the matrimonial disputes were resolved..The Court, therefore, directed the father-in-law and the son/husband to jointly or severally pay a total sum of Rs.50,000 per month to the daughter-in-law in order to enable her to identify a commensurate residence for herself and subsequently, the daughter-in-law shall vacate the Safdarjung property within a period of three months..In cases involving the interpretation of ‘shared household’ are currently pending before the Supreme Court, the Court granted a certificate of fitness to appeal to the parties under Articles 133(1)(a) and 134A of the Constitution of India..The appeal was allowed and disposed of accordingly..The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Arun Kumar Varma and Advocates Deepak Bashta, Vandini..The respondent was represented by Advocate Harsh Jaidka..Read the Judgement: