Father-In-Law Not Liable Under Domestic Violence Act For Failing To Control Adult Son: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a father-in-law cannot be held liable under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, merely because he did not control the conduct of his adult son.

“A father cannot be made liable under the DV Act merely because he did not control the conduct of his adult son,” Justice Madhu Jain observed.

The Court made the observations while dismissing a plea filed by a woman challenging an order setting aside the issuance of notice to her father-in-law in domestic violence proceedings.

The woman had alleged that her father-in-law interfered in her business affairs, discontinued her access to office and email facilities, threatened to take over or wind up the business in which she was a partner, and asked her, her husband and their daughter to leave the matrimonial home.

The Court held that the allegations, even when accepted as true, did not disclose an act of domestic violence by the father-in-law.

On the allegations concerning the business, the Court clarified that the fact that a dispute is commercial does not, by itself, exclude it from the scope of Section 3 of the DV Act. However, it said that the application must establish that the woman was deprived of a resource protected under the Act.

The Court noted that the woman had not alleged any right under law, custom, necessity or the domestic relationship to use the office premises or facilities belonging to her father-in-law's business.

It also found that the application did not explain how the alleged threat to take over or wind up the business could affect her partnership rights.

“No consequence was threatened and no step to remove the petitioner, prevent her access or disturb her possession is alleged. She continued to reside in the shared household and sought alternate accommodation with reference to the status of respondent No. 3. Read together, these facts do not show a threat of domestic violence by respondent No. 2,” the Court said.

Addressing the allegations of verbal and emotional abuse, the Court observed that merely describing conduct as insulting, abusive or humiliating, without setting out the underlying facts, would not be sufficient to constitute domestic violence.

“The words 'insulted', 'shouted' and 'abused' are conclusions. Without the facts underlying them, they do not make out verbal or emotional abuse under Section 3,” the Court observed.

While dismissing the plea, Justice Jain clarified that the domestic violence proceedings against the woman's husband would remain unaffected.