Supreme Court: Sum for loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years from the year 2017

 In Pranay Sethi   MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 16 SCC 680, this Court has awarded a total sum of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) under conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. It was held that the said sum should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. It was held thus:

59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000, Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 15,000 respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.

33. The judgment in Pranay Sethi   MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 16 SCC 680 was rendered in the year 2017. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for 10% enhancement. Thus, a sum of Rs. 16,500/- each is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. {Para 32}

34. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors.   MANU/SC/0500/2020 : AIR 2020 SC 3076, after considering Pranay Sethi   MANU/SC/1366/2017 : (2017) 16 SCC 680, has awarded spousal consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) and towards loss of parental consortium to each child at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). The compensation under these heads also needs to be increased by 10%. Thus, the spousal consortium is awarded at Rs. 44,000/- (Forty-four thousand only), and towards parental consortium at the rate of Rs. 44,000/- each (Total Rs. 88,000/-) is awarded to the two children.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6451 of 2021.

Decided On: 25.10.2021

N. Jayasree and Ors. Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Author: S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0966/2021 : AIR 2021 SC 5218,2021 SCC OnLine SC 967.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether mother in law of deceased son in law is entitled to get compensation under motor accident claim petition?

 In the instant case, the question for consideration is whether the fourth Appellant would fall under the expression 'legal representative' for the purpose of claiming compensation. In Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and Anr.   MANU/SC/0469/1987 : (1987) 3 SCC 234 this Court while considering the entitlement of the brother of a deceased who died in a motor vehicle accident to maintain a claim petition under the provisions of the MV Act, held as under:

13. We feel that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court is in consonance with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience having regard to the conditions of the Indian society. Every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation and that is provided by Sections 110-A to 110-F of the Act. These provisions are in consonance with the principles of law of torts that every injury must have a remedy. It is for the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal to determine the compensation which appears to it to be just as provided in Section 110-B of the Act and to specify the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The determination of the compensation payable and its apportionment as required by Section 110-B of the Act amongst the legal representatives for whose benefit an application may be filed Under Section 110-A of the Act have to be done in accordance with well-known principles of law. 

19. In Hafizun Begum (Mrs) v. Mohd. Ikram Heque and Ors.   MANU/SC/3045/2007 : (2007) 10 SCC 715 it was held that:

7. ...12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique   MANU/SC/0149/1989 : 1989 Supp (2) SCC 275 the definition contained in Section 2(11) Code of Civil Procedure is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead, it stipulates that a person who may or may not be legal heir, competent to inherit the property of the deceased, can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression 'legal representative'. As observed in Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai   MANU/SC/0469/1987 : (1987) 3 SCC 234 a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.

17. Tribunal relied not only upon judgments of American and English Courts but also upon Indian judgments for coming to the conclusion that even a religious order or an organisation may suffer considerable loss due to the death of a voluntary worker. The Tribunal also went on to decide who should be entitled for compensation as legal representative of the deceased and for that purpose it relied upon the Full Bench judgment of Patna High Court in Sudama Devi v. Jogendra Choudhary   MANU/BH/0024/1987 : AIR 1987 Pat 239, which held that the term "legal representative" is wide enough to include even "intermeddlers" with the estate of a deceased. The Tribunal also referred to some Indian judgments in which it was held that successors to the trusteeship and trust property are legal representatives within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

21. Coming to the facts of the present case, the fourth Appellant was the mother-in-law of the deceased. Materials on record clearly establish that she was residing with the deceased and his family members. She was dependent on him for her shelter and maintenance. It is not uncommon in Indian Society for the mother-in-law to live with her daughter and son-in-law during her old age and be dependent upon her son-in-law for her maintenance. Appellant No. 4 herein may not be a legal heir of the deceased, but she certainly suffered on account of his death. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that she is a "legal representative" Under Section 166 of the MV Act and is entitled to maintain a claim petition.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6451 of 2021.

Decided On: 25.10.2021

N. Jayasree and Ors. Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Author: S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0966/2021 : AIR 2021 SC 5218,2021 SCC OnLine SC 967.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme court: Motor accident claim tribunal should not apply split multiplier for calculation of compensation

 For determination of compensation in motor accident claims Under Section 166 this Court always followed multiplier method. As there were inconsistencies in the selection of a multiplier, this Court in Sarla Verma   MANU/SC/0606/2009 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 prepared a table for the selection of a multiplier based on the age group of the deceased/victim. The 1988 Act, does not envisage application of a split multiplier. {Para 32}

33. In K.R. Madhusudhan v. Administrative Officer   MANU/SC/0129/2011 : (2011) 4 SCC 689 this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 692, paras 14-15)

14. In the appeal which was filed by the Appellants before the High Court, the High Court instead of maintaining the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, reduced the same. In doing so, the High Court had not given any reason. The High Court introduced the concept of split multiplier and departed from the multiplier used by the Tribunal without disclosing any reason therefor. The High Court has also not considered the clear and corroborative evidence about the prospect of future increment of the deceased. When the age of the deceased is between 51 and 55 years the multiplier is 11, which is specified in the 2nd column in the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Tribunal has not committed any error by accepting the said multiplier. This Court also fails to appreciate why the High Court chose to apply the multiplier of 6.

15. We are, thus, of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside for it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence on record, for having not considered the future prospects of the deceased and also for adopting a split multiplier method.

34. We, therefore, hold that in absence of any specific reason and evidence on record the tribunal or the court should not apply split multiplier in routine course and should apply multiplier as per decision of this Court in Sarla Verma   MANU/SC/0606/2009 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 as affirmed in Reshma Kumari   MANU/SC/0287/2013 : (2013) 9 SCC 65.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6451 of 2021.

Decided On: 25.10.2021

N. Jayasree and Ors. Vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ.

Author: S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0966/2021 : AIR 2021 SC 5218,2021 SCC OnLine SC 967.

Print Page

Whether the family court should refuse to give maintenance to wife if she is not ready to serve husband’s mother and maternal grandmother?

For disposal of this Criminal Revision following point of

determination are being framed:

(i) Whether the opposite party No.1-wife has refused to live

with her husband without any sufficient cause, if so its

effect? {Para 9}

 21. In view of the above in the case in hand, the issue between the

husband and wife is that the wife is not agree to serve the old aged mother in-law and maternal grandmother-in-law, who are respectively 75 years and 95 years old. She creates pressure upon her husband to live separate from his mother and maternal grandmother. It is the very reason; this ground is not found sufficient that’s why the legislature while enacted under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has provided one of the grounds for denial the maintenance, if wife refuses to reside with the husband without any reasonable cause.

22. In Constitution of India under Article 51-A of Part IV-A, wherein the fundamental duties of the citizen of India are enumerated in Clause (f), it is provided ‘to value and preserve the reach heritage of our composite culture’. It is the culture in India to serve the old aged mother-in-law or grandmother-in-law as the case may by the wife in order to preserve this culture. It was obligatory on the part of wife to serve her husband’s mother and maternal grandmother and not to insist for unreasonable demand to live separate from his old aged mother-in-law and the maternal grandmother-inlaw. Accordingly, the point of determination No.1 is decided in favourt of the petitioner-husband and against the opposite party No.1-wife.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Revision No.172 of 2022

Rudra Narayan Ray Vs  Piyali Ray Chatterjee, 

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

 Pronounced on:22/01/2024.

Print Page

Whether the family court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law?

 Unquestionably, the dispute in this case revolves around Clause (d) of explanation to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act. A mere glance at the provision indicates that it has been worded in careful and cautious terms. It states that a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship would lie exclusively before the Family Court. 

{Para 21}

22. What has to be seen is whether the circumstances in which the order or injunction is sought in the present case arise out of a marital relationship. The test is not whether the cause of action, forming the the basis of the prayer for injunction, arises out of a marital relationship or whether the marital relationship is the reason for the grievance ventilated by the plaintiff. All that has to been seen are the circumstances in which the injunction is sought. Once the Court identifies the circumstances, if those circumstances arise out of a marital relationship, Clause (d) of the Explanation to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act would ipso facto be attracted.

23. Explanation (d) in Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act does not, either expressly or by necessary implication, require the parties to the lis to be husband and wife. Clearly, in so opining, the learned SCJ has effectively re-written the statutory provision. There is nothing in Clause (d) of the explanation to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act in which indicates that the clause would apply only where the litigation is between husband and wife. For the clause to apply, all that is required is that (i) there is a marital relationship, (ii) the martial relationship has resulted in a certain set of circumstances and (iii) the order or injunction which is sought in the suit is sought in those circumstances.

24. Applying these tests to the case at hand, if one examines the plaint, and the case set up by the respondents in the plaint, it is clear that the circumstances in which injunction has been sought by them have arisen out of the marital relationship between the petitioner and Pardip. Had the petitioner not married Pardip, she would never had been the daughter-in-law of the respondents, she would never had come to stay in the residence of the respondents, the respondents would never had given her any permissive licence to reside therein, and the entire chiaroscuro of events, which have been emphasised in the plaint by the plaintiffs, to highlight the alleged ignominy and persecution to which petitioner allegedly subjected the respondents, would not be in existence. The fact that the petitioner married the respondents’ son was the foundation of the relationship that emerged between the petitioner and the respondents, and it was in the circumstances which arouse out of that relationship that the entire dispute between the respondents and the petitioner, as per the allegations contained in the plaint, filed by the respondents, arose.

28. That being so, in my view, the case squarely falls within Clause (d) of the explanation to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act.

29. I am unable, therefore, to subscribe to the view expressed by the learned SCJ in the impugned order 30th October, 2019 in Suit 12114/2016 that the suit was not required to be transferred to the Family Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CM(M) 69/2020 & CM APPL. 2707/2020

AVNEET KAUR  Vs SADHU SINGH & ANR .

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

Dated: 01.06.2022

Print Page

Whether court can direct daughter in law to pay maintenance to mother in law in senior citizen Act?

We have reservations about such direction to Sheetal Shah to pay maintenance amount to Nalini Shah. As already observed, in Section 2(a), 'children' include son, daughter, grandson and grand-daughter and there is no reference to the daughter-in-law. Be that as it may, upon perusal of the original record, we do not find a single document showing the earnings of Sheetal Shah. In that view of the matter, the Impugned Order, to the extent that it directs Sheetal Shah to pay Rs. 25,000/- alongwith her husband Devang Shah to Nalini Shah and Mahendra Shah, cannot be legally sustained. However, so far direction given to Devang Shah to pay the said maintenance amount to Nalini Shah, the same is legally sustainable. {Para 32}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 3323 of 2019

Decided On: 06.05.2022

 Sheetal Devang Shah Vs.  Presiding Officer of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde and Revati Mohite Dere, JJ.

Citation: MANU/MH/1615/2022

Print Page

Whether the court can direct Daughter-In-Law To Pay Mother-In-Law Maintenance Under Senior Citizens Act?

We have reservations about such direction to Sheetal Shah to pay maintenance amount to Nalini Shah. As already observed, in Section 2(a), 'children' include son, daughter, grandson and grand-daughter and there is no reference to the daughter-in-law. Be that as it may, upon perusal of the original record, we do not find a single document showing the earnings of Sheetal Shah. In that view of the matter, the Impugned Order, to the extent that it directs Sheetal Shah to pay Rs. 25,000/- alongwith her husband Devang Shah to Nalini Shah and Mahendra Shah, cannot be legally sustained. However, so far direction given to Devang Shah to pay the said maintenance amount to Nalini Shah, the same is legally sustainable. {Para 32}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 3323 of 2019

 Sheetal Devang Shah Vs. Presiding Officer of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde and Revati Mohite Dere, JJ.

Citation: MANU/MH/1615/2022

Decided On: 06.05.2022

Print Page

Whether injunction application to restrain daughter-in-law from entering the marital home is maintainable?

 In the present case, the first defendant has squarely questioned the title, of the plaintiff, to the suit property, and has contended that it is joint family property. She has claimed her right, therein, not merely on the ground that it is her matrimonial home, but as the mother of a coparcener to the joint family. These disputes required to be adjudicated, in the suit, and no order, interlocutory or otherwise, can be passed on the premise that the plaintiff is right, and the first defendant is wrong.

35. In my opinion, it is not necessary to enter, deeply, into the circumstances in which mandatory, or prohibitory, injunction, can be granted at an interim stage, as these principles are well settled. The decisions, on which Ms. Rajkotia relies, and which have been cited hereinabove, clearly indicate that, essentially, a plaintiff, in order to be justified to claim an interlocutory mandatory, or prohibitory, injunction, has to establish (i) a strong case in his favour, the standard being higher than that of a prima facie case, (ii) that denial of prohibitory injunction would result in irreparable loss to her, and (iii) that the balance of convenience is decidedly in favour of grant of mandatory, or prohibitory, injunction at the interlocutory stage. Additionally, grant of mandatory or prohibitory injunction, at an interim stage, has been approved where the failure, to do so, would result in the suit becoming infructuous, or the final relief, sought therein, being rendered illusory. None of these criteria are satisfied, in the present case. Most importantly, the first defendant had been residing with the plaintiff, since 2002 (or, at the latest, 2014, even if the plaintiff's stand were to be accepted), and it was only on 10th May, 2020 the first defendant left the house of the plaintiff, to visit her mother. It cannot, therefore, be said, by any stretch of imagination, that, by allowing the defendant to return to the house, where she had been staying till 10th May, 2020, irreparable harm would ensue, to the plaintiff. Mere bald assertions, to the effect that the first defendant was harassing the plaintiff, can hardly suffice. Given the option between allowing the first defendant to return to her matrimonial home, where she had been residing since 2002, or 2014, and banishing her, at least during the pendency of the suit, therefrom, the balance of convenience is also, decidedly, in favour of the former, rather than the latter, alternative.

36. Ms. Rajkotia had sought to submit that, were injunction, as prayed by her, in this application, not granted at this stage, the suit would be rendered effectively infructuous, as it would linger on for years. The submission fails to impress. The prayer, in the suit, is for a decree of possession, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, in respect of the suit property, and for the decree of permanent injunction, restraining the first defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property, by the plaintiff. In fact, the prayer, in the present application, effectively seeks grant of the prayers in the suit, before the suit is tried and at an interlocutory stage. If this Court were to restrain the first defendant, at this stage itself, from returning to the suit property, the plaintiff would secure possession thereof, and, effectively, a permanent injunction, in terms of prayer (b) in the suit, would also be granted. The plaintiff, therefore, effectively seeks decreeing of the suit without a trial.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

I.A. 4618/2020 in CS (OS) 506/2018

Decided On: 02.07.2020

Anita Chopra  Vs.  Rohini Chopra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C. Hari Shankar, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/1332/2020

Print Page

Whether family court has jurisdiction to try suit filed by mother in law against daughter in law?

I respectfully agree with the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and the view aforesaid of the Bombay High Court. The claim of a third party to a marriage even if she be the mother of one of the spouses cannot be adjudicated before the Family Court and to the prejudice, on the aspects noted herein above, as to procedure, appeal, limitation, of such third party. It may be noted that the respondent/plaintiff in the present case is claiming absolute title to the property not as the representative or trustee of the husband of the petitioner/defendant and/or through the husband of the petitioner/defendant but in her own capacity as the widow and nominee of her deceased husband. It is also significant that though the petitioner/defendant is admitted to have been inducted into the suit premises owing to the marriage with the son of the respondent/plaintiff but that is not the cause of action for the suit. The cause of action for the suit is the refusal of the petitioner/defendant to vacate the house of which the respondent/plaintiff claims to be the exclusive owner. Merely because certain facts leading to the cause of action referred to the marital relationship of the petitioner/defendant would not make the suit as one in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship. The language of Clause (d) of Section 7 is peculiar. The words "circumstances arising out of marital relationship" do not qualify the words "suit or proceeding" but qualify words 'order or injunction'. Thus, the order of injunction sought from the court has to be in circumstances arising out of marital relationship. The order sought in the present case of eviction of the petitioner/defendant and of recovery of mesne profits from the petitioner/defendant does not arise out of a marital relationship but arises out of exclusive ownership claimed by the respondent/plaintiff of the property and the occupation thereof by the petitioner/defendant without authority and/or after the authority has ceased".

13. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts in Manita Khurana Vs. Indra Khurana (supra). In the present case, the plaintiff claims to be the exclusive owner of the suit property having purchased the same by way of a registered sale deed dated 29th August, 2014 and seeks the relief of injunction against the two defendants. Merely because the two defendants are married and the defendant No. 1 has taken the plea that some money in the purchase of the suit property and the construction thereof was spent from the earnings of defendant No. 2 which plea of defendant No. 1 would be hit by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, the relief in the present suit cannot be said to be between the parties to the marriage with respect to the property of the parties or either of them. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by the defendant No. 1 that the present suit is not maintainable and should be tried by Family Court is dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (OS) 104/2017

Decided On: 06.05.2020

 Meena Kapoor  Vs.  Ayushi Rawal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mukta Gupta, J.

Print Page

Whether Mother in law asking daughter in law to do household/domestic work amounts to cruelty?

 No family is totally devoid of clashes among members

constituting it. It is common for elders to scold and sometimes abuse

youngsters. Making a daughter in law to do the house hold/domestic

work is also not something unusual. From the evidence tendered by

the respondent, it is all the more clear that the aforestated factors

formed the basis for her ill-will to petitioner's mother.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

 MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

&

 MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 

Mat.Appeal.No.137 OF 2014

RANJITH.P.C. Vs   ASHA NAIR.P,

MARY JOSEPH, J:

Print Page

Whether mother in law can recover money from son in law before family court?

Adjudication of matrimonial disputes in a congenial atmosphere is the function of the Family Court. No doubt, a broad and liberal approach is required in determining the jurisdiction of the Family Court. But, it does not mean that, the Family Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate matters not even remotely connected with marriage and marital relationship. Exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts cannot be readily inferred. The expression "in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship" in Clause (d) of the explanation to Section 7(1) of the Act, denotes such circumstances surrounding, preceding and closely following a marital relationship, that is, the principal event of marriage and the eventualities surrounding the same. The "circumstances" must have a direct bearing on marriage. Prime consideration should be as to whether the cause of the lis has got any bearing with marital relationship. If the cause of action is emerging out of any circumstances related to matrimonial relationship and the same could not have existed independently, then the suit can be maintained before the Family Court, and it will fall under Clause (d) of the explanation to Section 7(1) of the Act. It is not necessary that, parties to a suit or proceeding under that clause, shall be parties to a marriage.

23. On an analysis of the facts of the present case on the basis of the parameters stated above, it is evident that the foundation of the claim for money made by the appellant against her daughter and son-in-law is not any circumstance arising out of a marital relationship. The amount was allegedly given by her to the respondents purely on account of her confidence and faith in them. There is no plea, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, that she gave the money at the instance of her husband or due to the pressure or influence made on her by her husband. The transaction between the appellant and the respondents has no connection with her marital relationship with her husband. The cause of action for the claim of money made by the appellant does not relate to the matrimonial relationship between her and her husband. The cause of action for realisation of money from the respondents would exist independently. The jurisdiction conferred on the Family Court is settlement of issues arising out of matrimonial causes. The dispute in the instant case is purely a civil dispute which one could agitate and seek relief from an ordinary civil court. The dispute is not one arising out of any marital relationship.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Mat. Appeal No. 541 of 2016

Decided On: 09.11.2018

 Vijayalakshmy Vs.  P.K. Jayashree and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.K. Abdul Rehim and R. Narayana Pisharadi, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2019 Kerala 53

Print Page

Whether mother in law can be directed to provide alternate accommodation to daughter in law in domestic violence proceeding?

 However, the action of the Mother-in-Law in selling the subject property, though not strictly illegal, has caused loss to the Daughter-in-Law. Accordingly, one would also have balance the corresponding rights of the parties. On the one hand, Mother-in-Law is alleged to have sold the property for her bona fide needs and third party rights in the subject property have arisen and on the other hand, the Daughter-in-Law is deprived of her rights of residence in the subject property.

35. The contention of the Mother-in-Law is that the Daughter-in-Law was residing in only one room of the first floor of the subject property. On the other hand, the contention of the Daughter-in-Law is that the household was common and she was occupying the first floor of the subject property.

36. Documents on record prima facie show that the Daughter-in-Law was in possession of one room on the first floor, but was sharing the kitchen and common areas on the ground floor.

37. Without getting into the controversy, one may examine the rights that are granted by Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

38. Section 19(1)(f) inter alia stipulates that the Magistrate shall secure same level of alternative accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or direct payment of rent for the same, if the circumstances so require.

39. In the facts of the present case, since the subject property is now not available, the only order that can be passed in favour of the Daughter-in-Law for securing her residence is to direct the Mother-in-Law to ensure that either a ground floor or a first floor is obtained on rent for the residence of the Daughter-in-Law in the locality ‘Anand Vihar’ in a similar property.

40. Since the action of the Mother-in-Law has also resulted in removal of a property from the control of the Daughter-in-Law, she has to be granted adequate, fair and reasonable compensation/monetary relief for the deprivation of said property.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.)

Crl.M.C 1868/2016 & Crl.M.A 35881/2018

Shachi Mahajan .v. Santosh Mahajan .

Decided on January 10, 2019,

Citation:  2019 SCC OnLine Del 6418, 

Print Page

Whether property of mother in law can be attached for recovery of maintenance granted to wife?

 Maintenance of a married wife, during subsistence of marriage, is on the husband. It is a personal obligation. The obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law arises only when the husband has died. Such an obligation can also be met from the properties of which the husband is a co-sharer and not otherwise. For invoking the said provision, the husband must have a share in the property. The property in the name of the mother-in-law can neither be a subject matter of attachment nor during the life time of the husband, his personal liability to maintain his wife can be directed to be enforced against such property.

19. Wholly un-contentious issues have been raised before us on behalf of Sonalben (wife). It is well settled that apparent state of affairs of state shall be taken a real state of affairs. It is not for an owner of the property to establish that it is his self-acquired property and the onus would be on the one, who pleads contra. Sonalben might be entitled to maintenance from her husband. An order of maintenance might have been passed but in view of the settled legal position, the decree, if any, must be executed against her husband and only his properties could be attached therefore but not of her mother-in-law.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2003 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1061 of 2007)

Decided On: 14.03.2008

Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel and Ors. Vs.  Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Citation: 2008 (4) SCC 649

Print Page

Whether wife is entitled to reside in house jointly owned by her husband and mother in law?

There can be no quarrel with the aforesaid exposition of law. But, then the petitioner has failed to prove on record that the house belongs exclusively to his mother. Rather, it has come on record that he alongwith his mother had taken a loan for building the house and he was repaying the loan amount in monthly installment of ` 7,000/-. He also admitted that his salary was ` 25,000/- per month, whereas, his mother had retired from a government job in the year 2010 and his father was handicapped. The petitioner himself has admitted that there are 9-10 rooms in the old and new houses and once this is the position, the petitioner cannot back out from his legal obligation of providing residence to the respondent in the shared household.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr.M.M.O. No. 248 of 2014

Decided On: 21.05.2015

Sandeep Gupta  Vs.  Indu Gupta

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)JOURNAL225

Print Page

When property dispute between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law will come within jurisdiction of family court?

We are of the considered opinion that the crucial

aspect to be considered while deciding the question as to

whether it is a suit or a proceedings instituted seeking an

order or injunction in the circumstances arising out of the

marital relationship, is the cause of the lis itself and not the

parties to the lis.     Prime consideration should be as to

whether the cause of the lis has got any bearing with the

marital relationship.     An objective assessment should be

made as to whether the cause has got any stem from the

circumstances arising out of the marital relationship.        In

other words, whether the cause should have been existed

but for the marital relationship, shall be the basis of the

assessment. If the answer is on the positive, definitely the

lis can be categorized as one not coming within the scope of


explanation (d). But if the cause of action is emerging out

of     any     circumstances related to    the   matrimonial

relationship and the same could not have existed

independently, then the suit can be maintained before the

Family Court, and it will fall under Explanation (d) to

Section F(1) of the Act.
 When the facts of the case at hand is analyzed

based on the above said parameters, it is evident that the

claim of the 1st respondent that she paid money to the 1st

appellant by disposing her own property for discharging

the bank liability of the mother-in-law, on the basis of a

specific understanding that the B-schedule property will be

assigned into her name, has got a clear stem arising out of a

circumstances connected to a marital relationship. Since

the alleged promise was not complied with and since the 1st

appellant had assigned the properties to her sons, the 1st

respondent is claiming declaration of title over the property

contained in B-schedule.    The alleged transaction of the 1st

respondent selling her own property for discharging her

mother-in-law's debt on the basis that the B-schedule will be


assigned to her name, happens only because of the

matrimonial relationship of the parties as daughter-in-law

and mother-in-law.        But for the marriage of the 1st

respondent with the son of the 1st appellant, such an alleged

transaction would not have taken place.        Therefore the

cause of action agitated against the mother-in-law had

arisen from circumstance connected with the matrimonial

relationship .      Whether the parties to the marriage are

parties        to the lis, becomes     immaterial  in    such

circumstances.       Therefore    considering   the    wider

interpretation to be given to the ambit and scope of the

explanation contained under clause (d), as guided by

binding precedents of this court and the hon'ble Supreme

Court, we are persuaded to hold that the cause agitated is

emerging from circumstances arising out of marital

relationship. It is rightly observed by the Family Court that

the alleged contract between the 1st respondent and the 1st

appellant is only due to the marriage of the 1st respondent

with the son of the 1st appellant.    The entire transaction

took place after the marriage. Therefore it is found that the


dispute will squarely come            within the purview   of

explanation (d) to section 7(1) of the Act.

         The Family Court observed that, the question as

to whether the transaction is a valid transaction, where

there is any bar of limitation, whether the relief claimed

under the other enactment can be claimed in the main

petition itself etc. are matters which need to be adjudicated

while contesting the suit.       We perfectly agree with such

observations and hold that the original petition instituted

before the Family Court is maintainable before that court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                        PRESENT:

                           MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
                                                               &
                          MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

   Dated;              15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015
                                           Mat.Appeal.No. 999 of 2015 ()
                                               

         JANAKI AMMA, Vs RENUKA SADANANDAN, 

Citation:AIR 2016 kerala 75

Print Page

Whether not treating daughter in law with respect amounts to offence punishable under S 498A of IPC?

It appears that after almost a period of three years the
first informant thought fit to lodge the FIR. Rude and
uncultured behaviour as well as perfunctory abuses are
mundane matters and would not attract the rigors of Section
498A of the IPC. There has to be something more to attract
Section 498A of the IPC. Even if I accept the entire case of the
prosecution, there is nothing against the father-in-law and the
married sister-in-law. Whatever little has been alleged is
against the mother-in-law, and that too, hurling of abuses,
using of perfunctory words, etc. They may be morally guilty of
not treating the daughter-in-law with respect in an Indian
society, but such moral acts fall short of an offence under
Section 498A of the IPC.
R/CR.MA/4899/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 4899 of 2015

HARESH LALSINGH GADHAVI  V STATE OF GUJARAT & 


CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 24/11/2015

Print Page

Whether mother in law can be directed to reside separate from her matrimonial home in domestic violence proceeding to avoid spoiling of peaceful matrimonial life of daughters-in-law?

During the course of attempt of settlement, as has been
narrated above, it transpired that petitioner No.1 is residing with his two
married sons and respondent is staying with her father. In the light of
the observations of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Navneet
Arora's case (supra) if the concept of 'joint family' is taken into
consideration, daughters-in-law of petitioner No.1 are prima facie
members of the joint family. In these circumstances, attempt to solve
one problem may lead to another problem, which could spoil the
peaceful matrimonial life of daughters-in-law of petitioner No.1 as
nature of respondent is alleged to be quarrelsome. Respondent has
stated before this Court that she is ready to live in some other suitable
accommodation, however, same has not been accepted by her in the
counter-affidavit. This Court is of the opinion that while deciding such
like issues, the Court cannot lose sight of the day-to-day happenings in
the society and socio-economic conditions and prevalent customs.
In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that
respondent should be provided a suitable alternative accommodation. If
the provisions of PWDV Act are to be strictly interpreted, then this
Court would have to order that respondent should be allowed to reside
with petitioner No.1-husband as the property in question belongs to the
husband, which certainly comes within the definition of “shared
household”.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40857 of 2012

Judgment delivered on: 21.04.2015
Avtar Singh and another

V
Smt. Jaswinder Kaur
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Dated;April 21, 2015

Citation; 2015 ALLMR(cri) Journal 433

PARAMJEET SINGH, J.

Print Page

Whether mother in law can file domestic violence proceeding against daughter in law?

As a matter of fact, para „4(i)‟ clarifies that even those women who are sisters, widows, mothers, single woman or living with the abuser are entitled to legal protection under the proposed legislation. A mother who is being maltreated and harassed by her son would be an "aggrieved person". If the said harassment is caused through the female relative of the son i.e. his wife, the said female relative will fall within the ambit of the „respondent‟. This phenomenon of the daughters-in-law harassing their mothers-in-law especially who are dependent is not uncommon in the Indian society.

10. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, para „4‟ of the Statement of Objects and Reasons cannot be stated to have excluded a female relative of the male partner or a respondent and thus, a mother-in-law being an "aggrieved person" can file a complaint against the daughter-in-law as a respondent.

Delhi High Court

Kusum Lata Sharma vs State & Anr. on 2 September, 2011

Author: Mukta Gupta

Print Page

When daughter in law is liable to pay maintenance to mother in law under S125 of CRPC?

Equivalent Citation: 2009(111)BOMLR1831, 2010(1)Crimes1, 2009(4)MhLj665,MANU/MH/0180/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
Criminal Revision Application No. 86 of 2007
Decided On: 06.03.2009
 Smt. Saroj W/o Govind Mukkawar
Vs.
Smt. Chandrakalabai Polshetwar and The State of Maharashtra
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.S. Shinde, J.

Criminal - Maintenance - Claim of - Entitlement of Mother-in-law - Section 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Sections 125 and 125(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Respondent No. 1 mother-in-law of present applicant - Applicant got job on compassionate grounds on death of her husband - Also received gratuity etc. - Neglected to maintain Respondent No. 1 - Application claiming maintenance filed by Respondent No. 1 - Application dismissed by learned J.M.F.C. on the ground that mother-in-law not entitled to claim maintenance from daughter-in-law under Section 125 Cr.PC - Revision filed by Respondent No. 1 allowed and applicant directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance to Respondent No. 1 - Hence, present Revision application - Held, at the time of obtaining appointment on compassionate grounds present applicant gave undertaking to support Respondent No. 1 - Deceased only son of Respondent No. 1 - Respondent No. 1 aged person and has no source of income - Respondent No. 1 entitled to claim maintenance from present Applicant - Revision application dismissed 

Mother-in-law, who is aged and has no source of income, is entitled to claim maintenance from her daughter-in-law.

Print Page

When woman should not be denied right of residence in house owned by her mother-in-law?

  If, as a matter of fact, a girl is brought to the house

by the bridegroom on his own without the junction of his

parents, of course, the girl cannot forward a claim on such a

house belonging to the father-in-law or the mother-in-law as

the shared household. In this particular case, the husband

of the woman is no where in the picture. He has virtually

abandoned the girl and has gone abroad. It seems that his

parents are hand in gloves with him and they want to see


that the girl is thrown to the street. The marriage of the girl

was an arranged marriage, and she was brought not to the

street after marriage, whereas she was brought to the house

in question. Party respondents have no case that her

husband has another house of his own wherein they were

living together. Had she been made aware before the

marriage that she would not be permitted to reside in that

house and she would not be permitted to treat that house as

shared household, she would not have agreed for such a

marriage. In such a case, no sensible parents of a girl will

give their daughter in marriage to such a person. Therefore,

having accepted the girl as their daughter-in-law and

permitted to be taken to that house for her stay there, they

cannot be permitted to show the doors to her, on a mere

claim that the house belongs to the mother-in-law.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                          PRESENT:

                    MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

               TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
                                 OP(Crl.).No. 23 of 2015 (Q)
                                  

        SHIMA, V   NAVAS
           

Print Page