The Delhi High Court has upheld an order directing a daughter-in-law and her son to vacate a property owned by her in-laws, emphasizing that the "right of residence in a shared household" under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act does not confer ownership of the premises.
Court's Observations on Right of Residence
Justice Purushaindra K Kaurav noted that the right of residence is a protective right intended to secure shelter, subject to balancing competing rights, including the right of senior citizens to peacefully enjoy their property. The court stated that in appropriate cases, eviction of the daughter-in-law from the shared household may be directed, provided suitable alternate accommodation or rent is made available to her.
Balancing Rights of Senior Citizens and Daughter-in-Law
The court observed that the DV Act does not envisage ownership rights over a property. In circumstances where cohabitation has become unworkable, the balance must tilt in favor of senior citizens, while leaving it open to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies, including alternate accommodation, in accordance with law. The judge directed the mother-son duo to vacate the property to secure the peaceful residence and dignity of the senior citizens, while also securing the rights of the woman and her son by handing over possession of another property owned by the in-laws.
Background of the Case
The court was dealing with an appeal filed by a woman who lost her husband but continued to stay at her in-laws' house with her child. As acrimony increased, the elderly couple asked them to move out, but to no avail. The couple then invoked provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act), alleging ill-treatment and seeking eviction.
Woman's Financial Independence Noted
The High Court found that the daughter-in-law was not in a destitute or vulnerable condition since she is a gainfully employed government teacher with a stable and independent source of income, and her child has grown up. The court pointed out that the DV Act is meant to shield a victim of domestic violence requiring protection in the form of continued residence in a shared household. However, the dispute between the parties is not one arising out of economic deprivation or lack of shelter, but centered around competing claims relating to LIC policies and alleged rights in properties derived from an ancestral business.
Harmonious Construction of Laws
The court said that in situations where DV laws and the rights of senior citizens overlap, a harmonious construction must be adopted, balancing a daughter-in-law's right to reside in a shared household against senior citizens' right to a tranquil life.
