Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The classic Saas-Bahu imbroglio, has now transformed into disputes between parents/in-laws and their children. These disputes have raised complex legal issues as to the interpretation of and balance between two legislations i.e. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter „DV Act‟) and The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter „PSC Act‟).

2. Since the time that the DV Act has been enacted, the concepts of `shared household‟ and `matrimonial home‟ have been considered in a large number of judgments. The judgment of the Supreme Court in S. R. Batra and Anr. v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 had considered the issue of „shared household‟ and laid down various principles to determine whether there was a „shared household‟ and what the rights of the daughter-in-law were. The question as to whether the daughter-in-law would be entitled as a matter of right to live in the home of her in-laws has, thereafter, been dealt in several judgments of this Court. Subsequent to Taruna Batra (supra), there have been decisions where some Courts have held that irrespective of whether the property belongs to the in-laws or not, so long as the daughter- in-law was living in the said home and no alternate accommodation had been made available to her by her husband, she could continue to live and any attempt to evict her would constitute domestic violence. On the other hand, there have been decisions where it has been held that if the house of the in-laws belongs exclusively to them, the same would not constitute a `shared household‟ under Section 2(s) of the DV Act. The only right of the woman in such cases would be to seek maintenance from the husband or children.

v) The Learned Magistrate before whom the cases filed by the 3d respondent are pending should bestow serious consideration of disposing of the same, as expeditiously as possible.

vi) The 3 rd respondent shall bear the costs of the appellant which is quantified at Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) consolidated.

44. The appeals are allowed with the aforesaid directions."

19. Recently, In Hiral P. Harsora & Ors. v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora & Ors., (supra), the Supreme Court analyzed the purpose of the DV Act including the Statement of Objects and Reasons. The Supreme Court struck down Section 2 (q) of the DV Act in view of the definition of „shared household‟ in Section 2 (s) and held that Section 2 (q) was restrictive in nature. The Supreme Court considered the scheme of the DV Act and in respect of `shared household‟ observed as under:

The Court upheld the right of the divorced wife who was given protection under the DV act. Thus, the rights of the in-laws to invoke the PSC Act was recognised.

37. However, subsequently, in Hamina Kang(supra) an order of the tribunal under the PSC Act was considered in the context of the daughter-in- law who had filed a petition under the DV Act. The Court considered the objects and purposes of the 2007 Act. The Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reviewed various judgments including Taruna Batra (supra), Vimal Ben(supra), Navneet Arora (supra), Preeti Satija (supra) and Hashir (supra) of the Kerala High Court. The provisions of the PSC and the DV Act were considered. The Court finally agreed with the view of the Kerala High Court and differed from the view of the Delhi High Court. It concluded that a house owned by a father-in-law is not a „shared household‟ in which the daughter-in-law has a right of residence. The Court observed that no right of the 2005 DV Act is sought to be nullified by the PSC Act. A status quo order had been passed in the DV Act. However, finally, the Court directed the in-laws to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 /- per month to their daughter-in-law for a period of one year and permitted her to seek remedies against her husband.

The Provisions of the two Acts

41. The judgments and decisions of various Courts discussed above are not exhaustive in nature.

42. The DV Act was enacted in 2005 and has been the subject matter of innumerable decisions. One of the objects of the DV Act is to provide for the rights of women to reside in their „matrimonial home‟ or „shared household‟ irrespective of whether their husband or the in-laws have a title to the property. The DV Act, thus, protects one of the three basic necessities of human life - viz. shelter, for the woman. Thus, in several proceedings, the right of the daughter-in-law to reside in her „matrimonial home‟ or „shared household‟ has been recognised.