The Delhi High Court recently observed that a woman's father-in-law cannot be made liable in a case filed by her under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) merely on the ground that he failed to control the conduct of his adult son.
Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while dealing with a woman's plea challenging a trial court order that had quashed a DV case she had filed insofar as her father-in-law was concerned.
The woman had alleged that her father-in-law failed to interfere with his son’s involvement with another woman.
The Court stated that this allegation does not amount to the father-in-law’s participation in his son’s matrimonial misconduct.
“A father cannot be made liable under the DV Act merely because he did not control the conduct of his adult son,” the Court added.
The couple married in 2006. The wife filed a DV complaint in 2019 against her husband and father-in-law for verbal, emotional and economic abuse.
Among other allegations, she claimed that her father-in-law restricted her access to office and email facilities in a family-run partnership firm, sided with the husband in matrimonial discord and compelled her to leave the matrimonial house.
In 2020, a magistrate issued notice to the father-in-law in the DV case. This order was set aside in 2023 on an appeal filed by the father-in-law. The complainant woman challenged this before the High Court.
Before the High Court, the father-in-law maintained that he cannot be held accountable for the actions of this adult son.
The High Court observed that the woman's allegations did not indicate any threat or steps taken by the father-in-law to remove her from the matrimonial house.
The Court acknowledged that the economic abuse is punishable under the DV Act. However, it observed that there nothing to indicate that she was deprived of her shares and profits in the partnership firm on account of her father-in-law's actions.
Further, the Court stated that the allegations of her father-in-law being dominating, orthodox and that he shouted or insulted her were vague and did not point to any specific incident.
"The application does not state what was said or how the conduct amounted to insult, ridicule, humiliation or threat, or otherwise caused mental harm. The words ‘insulted’, ‘shouted’ and ‘abused’ are conclusions. Without the facts underlying them, they do not make out verbal or emotional abuse," the Court stated in its August 19 order.
The Court, therefore, concluded that no DV case is made out against the woman's father-in-law and dismissed her plea.
Advocates Dhruv Chawla, Nitin Kumar, Vipul Kanwar and Harshita Pal appeared for the petitioner/ complainant woman.
Advocates Ravi Kumar Aggarwal and Ishaan Aggarwal appeared for the father-in-law.
Advocates Vineet Chaudhary and Santosh Chaudhary appeared for the woman's estranged husband.
[Read order]