Woman's Right To Shared Household Not License To Indefinitely Occupy In Laws' Home: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a woman's right to shared household under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act is a right of protection and not a right of ownership or a licence to indefinitely occupy premises of the in-laws, especially when such occupation causes demonstrable harm to senior citizens.
A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said that the Supreme Court has consistently held that such right is subject to be balanced against the rights of senior citizen parents to peaceful possession and enjoyment of their property.
The Bench relied upon a coordinate bench ruling in the case of Manju Arora v. Neelam Arora & Anr., wherein it was held that the right of residence does not entitle the daughter-in-law to remain indefinitely in premises owned by the parents-in-law, when continued cohabitation has become detrimental to their health and dignity.
The Court observed that the right of residence cannot be interpreted to curtail an owner's right to peaceful enjoyment of his or her property, particularly where uncontroverted material demonstrates that such residence is aggravating the senior citizen‟s medical condition.
The Bench made the observations while dismissing a wife's appeal against a single judge order directing a daughter in law to vacate the property of the in laws within two months, and issued interim directions relating to alternate accommodation and monthly maintenance by the husband.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court said that the Single Judge cannot be faulted for concluding that continued residence of the daughter law in the suit property was causing manifest hardship to the in laws, who are entitled to live with dignity and peace.
It added that the interim arrangement devised by the Single Judge was fair and proportionate, as it safeguarded her welfare and that of the children while simultaneously alleviating the acute distress experienced by the elderly parents-in-law.
The Court said that the arrangement strikes the correct balance by ensuring that the woman's residence and financial needs are protected, without compelling the senior citizens to endure conditions harmful to their physical and mental well-being.
“The law does not require that senior citizen parents should continue to suffer a corrosive domestic environment merely because the daughter-in-law asserts a residence right under the PWDV Act, especially when adequate and dignified alternative arrangements are offered and funded by the parents-in-law themselves,” the Court said.
Further, the Court concluded that it was not a case where the woman was being rendered destitute or homeless. It said that the Single Judge ensured that alternate accommodation of a comparable standard was made available to her at the expense of the in laws.
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Ms. Malvika Choudhary, Ms. Neha Jain, Mr. Taarak Duggal, Ms. Sneha Mathew and Ms. Vaishnavi Saxena, Advs
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms. Nattasha Garg, Mr. Aadarsh Kothari, Mr. Utpal Sharma and Ms. Rini Mehra, Advs. for R-1 and R-2; Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Mr. Arjun Syal, Mr. Naman Verma, Advs. for R-3
Title: X v. Y