In-Laws Cannot Be Made Party To Domestic Violence Case When Daughter-in-Law Never Lived Under Same Roof | Mumbai Court

In a significant order, a Mumbai family court has granted relief to an 83-year-old Breach Candy businessman and his 76-year-old wife in a domestic violence application filed by their estranged daughter-in-law.

According to the family court, the two parties have been living separately since the wedding in 2010, and thus no domestic relationship exists between them under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA).

The court allowed a plea moved by the senior citizen couple’s lawyer, Kanupriya Kejriwal, to have their names deleted from the woman’s application.

Case:

A 42-year-old woman, who is in the midst of a divorce battle with the couple’s son, had cited mental torture and emotional distress by her husband and in-laws and had claimed Rs 25 crore compensation and a flat of her choice at Nepean Sea Road. The estranged couple also have a child. The woman currently lives with her parents and son at Nepean Sea Road.

Allegations by Daughter-in-Law

The woman claimed her father-in-law was controlling the business, hence, causing economic abuse. She alleged that she had to take permission from the father-in-law for various expenses.

Among various grievances, the woman also alleged that her in-laws never protected or supported her when her husband was ill treating her. The woman also claimed that her in-laws intruded in her life on a daily basis.

Family Court, Mumbai

The court accepted Advocate Kejriwal’s arguments that mere visits by the in-laws to the premises where the woman was formerly residing with their son, was not sufficient to hold that they shared the same household or were in a domestic relationship with her. Kejriwal also submitted that the woman herself had accepted that they had always lived in separate homes.

Until the woman and her husband separated in 2017, they lived at Mahalaxmi. Their building also housed the father-in-law’s office that he visited daily and a temple that her mother-in-law frequented.

Judge Swati Chauhan held that being relatives and being in domestic relationship are two different concepts. The court said,

In the case in hand, the applicant [woman] and the non-applicant number 1 [her husband], since their marriage, were residing separately from the non-applicant numbers 2 [father-in-law] and 3 [mother-in-law]. Therefore, the applicant and non-applicant number 1 cannot be said to be having a domestic relationship with non-applicant numbers 2 and 3, according to the PWDVA.

The family court added,

For attracting the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), the criteria is not joint business, but living together jointly under one roof.

The court concluded,

These grievances of the applicant would be covered under the provisions of the PWDVA, only if non-applicant numbers 2 and 3 were staying under one roof as a joint family with her.

ALSO READ –

Wife Cannot File Domestic Violence Complaint At A Place She Is Merely Visiting | Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal

READ ORDER | Wife Cannot Simply Invoke Domestic Violence Act To Claim Maintenance

Divorced Wife Files Domestic Violence Case On Former Husband & In-Laws After His Re-Marriage | HC Calls It Abuse Of Law

Husband Agrees To Pay Rs 22 Lakh Alimony For 14-Day Marriage | Wife Drops Domestic Violence Charges

ALSO WATCH –

Our Earlier Interview | Kanupriya Kejriwal, Matrimonial Lawyer, Mumbai

MUST WATCH –

Karan Thapar Interview (2006) With WCD Minister Renuka Choudhary (Domestic Violence Act)

Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below 

Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below