Despite Progress Women In India Are Still Facing Domestic Violence Irrespective Of Age, Caste Or Religion: P&H High Court

In a significant observation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently said that despite an increase in educational qualifications and understanding of human relationships, still women in this country are subjected to domestic violence irrespective of age, caste, or religion.

The bench of Justice Alok Jain stated thus as it held that a complaint filed by a woman under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 is maintainable against her mother-in-law as well in a shared household.

The assertion came from the bench while dismissing a plea filed by Harvinder Kaur (mother-in-law) against an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram in January allowing her estranged daughter-in-law to reside in the house owned by her (Kaur).

"Despite an increase in the educational qualifications and understanding of the human relationship, still women in this country are subjected to domestic violence irrespective of their age, caste or religion" : #PunjabAndHaryanaHighCourt#DomesticViolence pic.twitter.com/4Yr5HoYmwf

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) March 15, 2023

The case in brief

Respondent no. 2/estranged daughter-in-law got married to respondent no. 4 (son of petitioner) in October 2016, and a son (respondent no. 3) was born out of wedlock. The son is admittedly a special child who needs extra medical attention and care.

Now, due to the matrimonial discord, respondents nos. 2 (estranged daughter-in-law) & 3 (son) instituted a complaint in 2019 under various provisions of law and also under Section 23 of the D.V. Act, for claim and relief of interim maintenance. In this complaint, the petitioner (Kaur/Mother-in-law) and her son (husband of respondent no. 2) were added as party respondents.

After a pendency of more than 3 years, the present petitioner (mother-in-law) and her son (husband) categorically undertook to take the wife/daughter-in-law and her son to the shared household. The husband also undertook to pay an amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs, however, later on, he failed to pay the said amount.

They both also defaulted in taking the daughter-in-law to the shared household and thus, the daughter-in-law moved an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, wherein she was allowed to reside in the shared household.

The Magistrate also issued an arrest warrant against the husband for failure to make the payments of arrears of maintenance. Now, this very order of the Magistrate was challenged before the High Court by Harvinder Kaur (mother-in-law).

It was her plea that the house belongs to her, who is the mother of respondent no. 4 and is not liable to discharge the liability of her son (husband of the estranged daughter-in-law) and that the said house was purchased by the petitioner on her own and from her own resources.

Lastly, it was also pleaded before the High Court that she (mother-in-law) could not have been made a party in proceedings under the DV Act as the same is in violation of provisions of Section 2(q).

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the objective of the DV Act is to protect the wife or a female live-in partner from the violence at the hands of the husband or a male live-in partner or their relatives as the women have been a victim of domestic violence since time immemorial. 

The Court further observed that the 2006 Act gives a right to the victimized woman to reside in the matrimonial or shared household, whether or not she or her husband/ male live-in partner has any right, title, or interest in the property.

"The said right is only qua residency and not the title. The purpose of this protection is apparently only to safeguard the life and liberty of the victim from domestic violence," the Court added.

Further, the Court read the definitions under Section 2(a), (f), (q) & (s) and Section 19 of the D.V. Act together to note that a Magistrate can pass a residence order on being satisfied that the domestic violence has taken place, and for the said order to be effective, the relatives which include female relatives of the respondent are also bound by it.

In this regard, the Court referred to Apex Court's ruling in the case of Hiral P. Harsora and ors. v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and ors 2016 (4) R.C.R.(Civil) 750, wherein it was held that in the case of a wife or a common law wife complaining of domestic violence, the husband's relatives including mother-in-law and sister-in-law can be arrayed as respondents and effective orders passed against them.

In fact, in Hiral Case (supra), the victim woman was also held entitled to monetary relief against her husband and female relatives which includes the mother-in-law.

Consequently, the contention raised by the counsel of the petitioner that by virtue of Section 2(q) of the D.V. Act, the complaint was not maintainable against the petitioner (mother-in-law) was rejected and her plea was dismissed.

Case title - Harvinder Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others [CRM-M-8352-2023]

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 42

Click Here To Read/Download Order