Recently, the Delhi High Court dealt with a petition filed under Section 482/483 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 227 of the Constitution challenging orders by the Sessions Judge and Magistrate in a domestic violence case. The petitioner, who married the respondent in 2016, had sought the protection of residence in a shared household after marital discord led her in-laws and husband to vacate the premises.
The petitioner filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, seeking interim maintenance and protection from dispossession. Initially, the Magistrate granted her maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month and barred the respondents from evicting her. However, in December 2019, the Magistrate vacated these orders, citing the petitioner’s employment with Accenture, which provided her monthly salary of Rs. 40,000. The Sessions Judge upheld this decision in August 2020.
The petitioner challenged the eviction, arguing that the house was her shared household under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act. She claimed that the father-in-law’s application to vacate the premises and sell the property was not maintainable. The respondents, however, contended that the petitioner had only a permissive right of residence and that the father-in-law, as the lawful owner, was within his rights to reclaim possession.
The Court, referring to Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act, noted that while the petitioner had the right to residence in the shared household, this right was not absolute. The Court emphasized the need to balance the rights of the petitioner with those of her father-in-law, a senior citizen entitled to live peacefully, stating, “While the petitioner has a right to reside in the shared household, the same is not an indefeasible right. The father-in-law, being the sole and absolute owner of the property, also has the right to enjoy his property without undue interference”. It was further noted that “the rights of the father-in-law, a senior citizen, are also to be protected. In such situations, it becomes necessary to strike a balance between the competing rights of both parties”.
The Court’s decision emphasizes the need to strike a fair balance between the rights of the parties in domestic disputes, particularly in cases concerning senior citizens and shared household arrangements.
Citation: CRL. M.C.1797/2020, CRL.M.A. 12592/2020
Coram: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Picture Source :
