Vinay Verma v. Kanika Parischa (2019) - Balance Between DV Act & Senior Citizens Act

• BENCH: Justice Pratibha M. Singh
• DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29^th November, 2009
• PARTIES: Vinay Verma (Petitioner) & Kanika Parischa (Respondent)

SUMMARY

More often than not, conflicts take place in households and such conflicts happen even more when it comes to matrimonial cases. This particular judgment puts light on the conflict between the rights of the in-laws and the daughter-in-law. Not only that, this judgment by the Delhi High Court also provides a solution to this problem and shows the path to be followed in such cases.

ISSUES

1. Whether the property in dispute was a ‘shared household’ under the Domestic Violence Act?
2. Whether the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act would prevail over the Senior Citizens Act?

OVERVIEW

• The present case is a case of dispute between the daughter-in-law and the parents of her husband which arose as the defendant and the husband had grown hostile towards each other, after which the husband went to live with his grandparents.
• The parents-in-law of this case pleaded before the court to direct the defendant to not enter the premises of their household.
• The question in dispute was whether the daughter-in-law could live in a household which was owned by the father-in-law of her father-in-law.
• This case first went to the Trial Court, which ruled that such property was the matrimonial home of the defendant and that the defendant had the right to reside in her matrimonial home as that is the only case where she could live until her marriage existed.
• This case then came before the Delhi High Court.
• The plaintiff took support of the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act arguing for their possession over the property while the defendant contended the matrimonial home to be the household property under the Domestic Violence Act.
• One other major question that arose in this case was whether the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Tarun Batra Case[1] would be applicable in this case.

IMPORTANT ACTS

1. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

JUDGMENT ANALYSIS

The Delhi Court, by this remarkable judgment, held that both the Domestic Violence Act and the Senior Citizens Act are overlapping in nature and therefore a middle course has to be taken.

• It was held by the court that while the daughter-in-law has a right to shelter over her head, even the parents have the right to enjoy their property.
• The present case is different from the Tarun Batra case[2] in the sense that the matter of the rights of the parents did not arise in that case. Even the property in dispute is not a shared household.
• Striking a balance between both the Acts, the Delhi Court gave a set of guidelines to be followed so that injustice does not happen and the rights of both the parties are respected.
• The court held that in such a dispute like the present one, the nature of relationship between the parties has to be first ascertained.
• Then, if the relationship comes out to be acrimonious, the parents’ right must be respected. They ‘ought to be permitted to seek the eviction of the son or daughter-in-law from their premises’. However, the husband would still have to maintain the wife under the Domestic Violence Act.
• If the situation is such that the relations between the son and his parents are cordial but not with the daughter-in-law, there is an obligation over both the parents and the husband to maintain her. Her eviction would be allowed if a ‘reasonable alternative accommodation’ is provided for her.
• If the situation is ssuch that the son and his wife are ‘ill-treating’ the parents, the parents are entitled to ask for their ‘permanent eviction’ from the premises of their house to live peacefully use the property for generating money for their expenses.
• If the situation is such that the son has abandoned relations with both the parents and the wife and they were living as a joint family before such a breakdown, the parents can take possession from the daughter-in-law. However, they would have to provide her shelter for a reasonable period during which she seeks her remedies against the husband.
• Hence, in this case the daughter-in-law’s eviction was allowed. However the parents had to pay her monthly allowance to help her find and alternate accommodation.

CONCLUSION

By the way of this judgment, the honorable Delhi High Court made it clear that a balance has to be stricken when the two overlapping Acts like the Domestic Violence Act and the Senior Citizens Act are in direct collusion. The Court held that the rights of both the parents and the daughter-in-law would be respected. While the daughter-in-law has the right to live in her matrimonial home, the parents have the right to live in their home peacefully and use it for their expenses. Thus, the High Court laid down various guidelines in this judgment in order to avoid any kind of injustice to both the parties to the dispute.

• [1] (2007) 3 SCC 169.
• [2] Ibid.