Daughter-in-law’s rights under Domestic Violence Act can’t be defeated for peace of her elderly in-laws: HC

The court stayed order of the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, that directed her eviction.

The court also noted that the Tribunal should have considered the fact that a plea filed by the petitioner woman under the DV Act for right to remain in a shared residence was still pending before a magistrate. It asked the magistrate to deal with her plea in an expeditious manner.

It suspended the Tribunal’s order for six months till the magistrate passed an interim order in plea by the woman under DV Act.

“No doubt, senior citizens are entitled to reside in their own house with peace and without any disturbance on account of marital discord between Petitioner and her husband. But at the same time, the machinery under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be used for the purpose of defeating the right of a woman under Section 17 of the D. V. Act,” the HC noted, while ruling against impugned ‘summary eviction order.’

It went on to observe, “It is not disputed that Petitioner is not earning herself and that she has no other place to reside. Therefore, Petitioner cannot be rendered homeless to ensure peace of mind for the senior citizens. Petitioner’s husband has so far not made any arrangement for residence of the couple despite passage of 6 long months from the date of the Tribunal’s order,”

A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne on March 18 passed judgement in plea by daughter-in-law of the senior citizens, challenging the September, 2023 order passed by the Tribunal that directed her and her husband to vacate the residence of her in-laws.

The woman, through advocate Ashutosh Kulkarni argued that the Tribunal’s order was being misused by her husband to throw her out of matrimonial home with connivance of his parents.

The court noted that the husband, who did not vacate the said house and continued to stay with his parents, had not challenged the said order. It noted the couple, which got married 27 years ago, does not share cordial marital relationship anymore, therefore the petitioner felt that the order was misused to deny her stay in the house shared for several years.

Justice Marne raised a question that while DV Act would protect the petitioner from being thrown out of house owned by her husband if she had resided in a nuclear family separate from her in-laws, would she be put in a ‘disadvantageous’ position if she was staying in a joint family.

The judge said the ‘balancing act’ is required to be done when there is a contest between rights of senior citizens and those of a woman under DV Act.