Guidelines in order to strike a balance between the Senior Citizen Act and the Domestic Violence Act:

Kritika Pandey | Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda | 26th December 2019

Vinay Varma & ors Versus Kanika Pasricha & Anr, CM (M) 1582/2018 & Cm Appl. 53645/2018

FACTS:

• The Plaintiff is the father in law and the Defendant no.1 (D-1) is the daughter-in-law and the Defendant No.2 (D-2) is the son. There is a suit property, purportedly belongs to the father-in-law of the Plaintiff.
• As per the plaint, he and his family including his wife, their son and daughter-in-law all resided in the suit property.
• However acrimony occurred between the son and daughter-in-law resulting in the son leaving the house and allegedly staying with his grand-parents.
• This fact is disputed by the daughter-in-law, who states that the son is colluding with his parents and, in fact, lives in the same house i.e. the suit property.
• The daughter-in-law averse that after her marriage she had moved into the suit property. She states that the Plaintiff has not placed any documents to show the ownership of the said property.
• According to the Plaintiff, the D-1, admits that the property does not belong to her or to her father-in-law. Thus, under Order XII Rule 6 Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”) since the ownership by plaintiff’s father-in-law is admitted and the suit property cannot be treated as “shared household” as per the judgment in S. R. Batra and Anr. v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 under the DV Act, a decree on admission is prayed.
• In reply to the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the daughter-in-law denies that she had ever admitted ownership the plaintiff’s father-in-law. She pleads that since the Plaintiff itself admitted that he is not the owner, there is no admission by her.
• The Trial Court dismissed the application and held that since the suit property is the matrimonial house, the D-1 has a right to reside in the same till the subsistence of the marriage.

HELD:

• This property cannot constitute “shared household” under Section 2 (s) of the DV Act. However question of admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is concerned, it held that there has been no admission by the daughter-in-law who has clearly challenged the rights of the father-in-law to maintain the suit.
• Keeping in mind the provisions of the PSC Act as well, the Plaintiff does have a right to secure a peaceful life for himself and his wife.
• However, there is no doubt that the son is now living with his grandparents. Thus, the relationship between the in-laws and the parents and the son does not seem to be acrimonious.
• The daughter-in-law was clearly living with her in-laws and her husband till disputes arose between her and her husband.
• The relationship between the parties is not congenial. Considering this factual background, some directions are issued.

Guidelines which are to be followed while adjudicating such completing claims:

1. The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the son’s/ daughter’s family.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. If the relationship between the parents and the son are 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.