The rights of parents/in-laws and children/their families under the DV Act and the PSC Act must be balanced depending upon the facts of each case.

JUDGMENT :

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.

3. The conundrum gets more complex with the enactment of the PSC Act which permits senior citizens and parents to take proceedings for removal of their children from the house which exclusively belongs to them under the definition of `maintenance”.

4. There are several categories of disputes which have arisen between parents/in-laws/children. The first category of cases are ones in which the parents/in-laws have developed acrimony either with the son and daughter-in-law jointly and/or individually resulting in the parents/in-laws seeking the right of exclusive residence either in the form of possession and injunction or seeking eviction of the son/daughter-in-law. The second category of cases are also those where there is a rift between the son and the daughter-in-law and either in collusion with the son or otherwise, an attempt is made to evict the daughter-in-law. In most cases, the son i.e. the husband either simply does not appear in the proceedings or refuses/fails to provide maintenance to the wife. Further, in some cases it is noticed that the son is in collusion with the parents and leaves the residence of the parents only in order to enable his parents to evict the daughter-in-law. In the third category of cases, the son has actually moved out of the residence and lives in a different residence. However, the daughter-in-law refuses to move from the residence of the in-laws due to a lack of alternate accommodation or otherwise.

5. Disputes are pending either in the criminal courts, under the DV Act, in the Family Courts, before the Special Tribunal constituted under the PSC Act, Civil Courts and Writ Courts where possession and eviction is sought. Though, there is no doubt that the decision in each case depends upon the facts and circumstances, the overarching pattern is very clear that the parents/in-laws rely on their rights under the PSC Act and the daughter-in-law relies on the DV Act. Even in proceedings which are not filed under the PSC Act, the same is cited to seek protection and enforcement of rights recognised therein, in civil and criminal proceedings.

Facts of the present case

6. In the present case, the Plaintiff is the father in law and the Defendant no.1 is the daughter in la