Domestic Violence Act Cannot Be Used As A Ploy By Son To Claim Father's Property On The Strength Of Wife's Right Of Residence: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday held that the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, being a social welfare legislation, cannot be used by a son as a ploy to either claim a right in his father's property or to retain possession of the same on the strength of his wife's right of residence.

Justice Pratibha Singh observed thus:

"The provisions of the DV Act cannot be used as a ploy by the son, to either claim a right in his father's property or continue to retain possession of the father's property, on the strength of his wife's right of residence."

"A civil dispute relating to ownership of property cannot be converted, in this manner, into a case under the DV Act, as the same would amount to be an abuse of the beneficial provisions of the DV Act, by stretching it over and beyond its purpose and ambit."

The father had filed a suit against his son and daughter in law seeking decree of Permanant injunction against them thereby restraining them from disposing-off the suit property.

It was thus his case that being the owner of property, permanant injunction was sought in view of various disputes between him and the defendants being his son and daughter in law.

On the other hand, it was the case of the defendants that the property in question was purchased from the joint family fund and that it was generated out of the sale of the earlier property, to which he had a right, something which does not exclusively belong to the father.

The Trial Court had held that the Plaintiff father was the exclusive owner of the said property and the son and daughter-in-law i.e., the Defendants were merely licensees. Accordingly, a decree was passed in favour of the Plaintiff in his application under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC.

The First Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. The same was challenged by way of a second appeal in the High Court by the son and daughter in law.

Analyzing the facts of the case and relying on plethora of judgments on the subject, the Court was of the view that the father was not in a good financial condition, and in fact was required to avail of legal-aid, to be able to pursue the suit before the Trial Court.

"These pleas are very generalised in nature, and clearly appear to be pleas which are taken to highlight the domestic problem within the family members rather than to set up a case under the DV Act. Admittedly, there are no complaintsthat have been preferred against the father-in-law and there are no casesfiled or pending under the DV Act, or any other legislation at the instance of the daughter-in-law," the Court observed.

It further observed that remote allegations against the brother i.e., the devar, in the written statement, would not result in a finding of 'shared household', where the daughter-in-law, by herself, would have to be given a right of residence. 

"While the DV Act is a social welfare legislation granting protection to women who are victims of domestic violence, every dispute amongst family members cannot be converted into a dispute under the DV Act. The same ought not to be allowed to happen, as it may cause unintended misuse of the provisions of the said Act creating turmoil within families, especially whenthere is no matrimonial dispute whatsoever between husband and the wife, i.e., son and daughter-in-law," the Court observed at the outset.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal by observing that the judgments of the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court do not warrant interference.

Title: AARTI SHARMA & ANR v. GANGA SARAN

Click Here To Read Order