New Delhi: Upholding an order asking a daughter-in-law and her son to vacate a property owned by her in-laws, Delhi High Court has stressed that “right of residence in a shared household” under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act doesn’t mean ownership of the premises.“The right of residence is a protective right, intended to secure shelter, and is subject to the balancing of competing rights, including the right of senior citizens to peacefully enjoy their property… In appropriate cases, the court may direct eviction of the daughter-in-law from the shared household, provided that suitable alternate accommodation or rent in lieu, thereof, is made available to her,” HC said, relying on provisions of the Act.Justice Purushaindra K Kaurav observed that the Act doesn’t envisage ownership rights over a property. “In circumstances where cohabitation has become wholly unworkable, the balance must tilt in favour of the senior citizens, while leaving it open to the petitioners to avail (themselves of) appropriate remedies, including alternate accommodation, in accordance with law,” he noted, directing the mother-son duo to vacate the property “so as to secure the peaceful residence and dignity of the senior citizens”.The judge also secured the rights of the woman and her son, who will be handed over possession of another property owned by her in-laws.The court was dealing with an appeal filed by the woman who lost her husband but continued to stay at the in-laws’ house with her child. As acrimony between the parties increased, the elderly couple asked them to move out, but to no avail.The couple then invoked provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizens Act), alleging ill-treatment and seeking the duo’s eviction.HC found that the daughter-in-law wasn’t in a destitute or vulnerable condition since she is a gainfully employed govt teacher with a stable and independent source of income, and her child has grown up.HC pointed out that the DV Act is meant to shield a victim of domestic violence requiring protection in the form of continued residence in a shared household. However, the dispute between the parties in question is not one arising out of economic deprivation or lack of shelter, but centred around competing claims relating to LIC policies and alleged rights in properties stated to have been derived from an ancestral business, it added.The court said that in situations where DV laws and the rights of senior citizens overlap, a harmonious construction must be adopted, balancing a daughter-in-law’s right to reside in a shared household against senior citizens’ right to a tranquil life.
