No Right To Permanent Alternate Accommodation For Daughter-In-Law Under DV Act Or Senior Citizens Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that neither the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, nor the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, contemplates grant of “permanent accommodation” to a daughter-in-law, but onlyrecognizes right of shared-household.Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was dealing with a plea filed by elderly parents challenging an appellate authority's...
The Delhi High Court has held that neither the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, nor the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, contemplates grant of “permanent accommodation” to a daughter-in-law, but onlyrecognizes right of shared-household.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was dealing with a plea filed by elderly parents challenging an appellate authority's direction requiring them to provide “permanent alternate accommodation” to their daughter-in-law and grandchildren after ordering their eviction from the shared property.
The petitioners, aged 76 and 73 years, had approached authorities under the Senior Citizens Act alleging physical and mental harassment by their son and daughter-in-law.
The District Magistrate had directed eviction of the daughter-in-law and son from the property after recording findings of ill-treatment and noting that the elderly couple had no independent source of income.
While upholding the eviction order, the Divisional Commissioner modified it by directing the in-laws to provide alternate reasonable accommodation of similar size to the daughter in law and grandchildren on a permanent basis, also noting that one of the children was a special child.
Disposing of the plea, the Court noted that the relationship between the parties was admittedly acrimonious, as observed by the Divisional Commissioner.
It added that while the in-laws were entitled to seek eviction, the obligation to maintain the daughter-in-law and provide shelter to her primarily rested upon her husband.
The Court said that the atmosphere in the shared household had become and detrimental to the well-being of the senior citizens, making cohabitation impossible.
It however observed that the undertaking to provide alternate accommodation to the daughter in law and grandchildren cannot be stretched to mean permanent accommodation when the statute does not provide for the same.
“There are no provisions under the DV Act or the Senior Citizens Act for the grant of permanent accommodation. What is recognised therein, is the right of shared-household,” the Court said.
Accordingly, the Court modified the impugned order and directed the in-laws to pay Rs. 25,000 towards shared household and an additional Rs. 5,000 towards maintenance every month to the daughter-in-law.
Advance payment for four months was also directed to be made within 45 days, after which the daughter-in-law and children were directed to vacate the property.
The Court also clarified that failure to continue monthly payments would entitle the daughter-in-law to seek restoration of possession in the property.
Title: PARMAL & ANR v. THE STATE & ORS