VINAY VARMA Vs. KANIKA PASRICHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The classic Saas-Bahu imbroglio, has now transformed into disputes between parents/in-laws and their children. These disputes have raised complex legal issues as to the interpretation of and balance between two legislations i.e. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter "DV Act") and The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter "PSC Act").

(2.) Since the time that the DV Act has been enacted, the concepts of 'shared household' and 'matrimonial home' have been considered in a large number of judgments. The judgment of the Supreme Court in S. R. Batra and Anr. v. Taruna Batra, 2007 3 SCC 169 had considered the issue of "shared household" and laid down various principles to determine whether there was a "shared household" and what the rights of the daughter-in-law were. The question as to whether the daughter-in-law would be entitled as a matter of right to live in the home of her in-laws has, thereafter, been dealt in several judgments of this Court. Subsequent to Taruna Batra (supra), there have been decisions where some Courts have held that irrespective of whether the property belongs to the in-laws or not, so long as the daughterin-law was living in the said home and no alternate accommodation had been made available to her by her husband, she could continue to live and any attempt to evict her would constitute domestic violence. On the other hand, there have been decisions where it has been held that if the house of the in-laws belongs exclusively to them, the same would not constitute a 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the DV Act. The only right of the woman in such cases would be to seek maintenance from the husband or children.

(3.) The conundrum gets more complex with the enactment of the PSC Act which permits senior citizens and parents to take proceedings for removal of their children from the house which exclusively belongs to them under the definition of 'maintenance'.