Whether Parents-in-law can claim for maintenance from their widowed daughter-in-law under Section 125 of CRPC?

This Court has considered the submission and the judgment in the case of Saroj W/o. Govind Mukkawar (supra). In the case of Saroj W/o. Govind Mukkawar (supra), the distinguishing factor was that the widow of the deceased son was appointed by the department, where the deceased was serving, on a compassionate ground, wherein she was required to give an undertaking that she will maintain the members of the family who were dependent on the deceased. In this case, there is nothing to indicate that the job secured by the petitioner is on a compassionate ground. Even by looking at the application, it is clear that deceased husband was working in MSRTC, whereas now the petitioner is appointed in health department of the State Government. Thus it is clear that the appointment is not on a compassionate ground. The submission that the petitioner would succeed the property of deceased need not be considered in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The categories of persons entitle to claim maintenance are already mentioned in Clause (a) to (d) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 125. This Court has already held in Criminal Revision Application No. 139/2017 that maintenance under the said section can be claimed only by the persons falling in the category mentioned in the Section. {Para 8}

9. Thus considering this legal position and the facts of the case it is clear that the respondents are not entitled to receive maintenance from the petitioner on the counts firstly that they are not coming under the relation mentioned in Section 125. Secondly the appointment of the petitioner was not on a compassionate ground in place of her husband. Thirdly on the count that the respondent no. 2 has also received an amount of Rs. 1,88,000/- after the death of deceased son. The fact that the couple have a land and have their own house, is also not disputed. So even on facts this Court finds that no case is made out by the respondents to claim maintenance from the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the continuance of the proceeding of Criminal M.A. No. 25/2019 pending in the Court of Learned Nyayadhikari Gram Nyayalaya, Jalkot, Dist. Latur would be an abuse of process law and therefore the same is quashed.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1092 of 2022

Decided On: 12.04.2023

Shobha Vs. Kishanrao and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Kishore C. Sant, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/1469/2023.

Print Page

Can daughter-in-law claim relief against parents-in-law under the Domestic violence Act if she has no dispute with her husband?

 While the DV Act is a social welfare legislation granting protection to women who are victims of domestic violence, every dispute amongst family members cannot be converted into a dispute under the DV Act. The same ought not to be allowed to happen, as it may cause unintended misuse of the provisions of the said Act creating turmoil within families, especially when there is no matrimonial dispute whatsoever between husband and the wife, i.e., son and daughter-in-law. The provisions of the DV Act cannot be used as a ploy by the son, to either claim a right in his father’s property or continue to retain possession of the father’s property, on the strength of his wife’s right of residence. A civil dispute relating to ownership of property cannot be converted, in this manner, into a case under the DV Act, as the same would amount to be an abuse of the beneficial provisions of the DV Act, by stretching it over and beyond its purpose and ambit.{Para 49}

50. The following peculiar facts arising in this case, deserve to be highlighted:

(i) The ownership of the Plaintiff in the suit property is not in dispute.

(ii) The sale of the property of the mother, which took place in 2011, was never challenged by the Defendants.

(iii) The purchase of this suit property in the name of the Plaintiff was never challenged by the Defendants.

(iv) There is no complaint of Domestic Violence raised by the daughter-in-law before any forum. In fact, to the contrary, the Plaintiff has filed complaints against his son and daughter-in-law with police repeatedly, alleging ill-treatment and abuse.

(v) The Defendants i.e., the son and daughter-in-law are living together peacefully. The written statement before the trial court was filed jointly. The first appeal was also filed jointly, and so is the present second appeal. There is no estrangement or marital discord between them.

(vi) The order passed in the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC has also been executed and the Defendants have already moved out of the suit property and are living in alternate premises.

Therefore, the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in Satish Chandra Ahuja (supra) and Smt. Vanitha (supra).

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

RSA 14/2021 & CM APPLs. 3964/2021, 3966/2021, 21708/2021

AARTI SHARMA & ANR Vs  GANGA SARAN 

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Date of decision: 24th August, 2021

Print Page

Whether daughter-in-law can seek an order to restrain parents-in-law from selling their house property?

 While relying upon the principles annunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, the learned Appellate Court in the impugned judgment observed that the daughter-in-law (petitioner herein) was not residing at the house in question on the day of presentation of the complaint nor any time soon before. Further observed that she was occupying a staff quarter allotted to her husband and lived in the house in

question only for short duration and occasionally visited parents-in-law, to say only thrice. The Appellate Court accordingly held that these short durational visits or stay of daughter-in-law at the house of the parents-inlaw would not get the house a colour of being a shared house hold and having hold so, the restraint order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was set aside, it being without any finding as regards the nature of premises being a shared house hold. Further held that the parents-in-law shall be well within their rights to sell off the house in question.{Para 14}

20. But the pertinent question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the old aged parents-in-laws, who at the fag-end of their life, wish to sell off their property to relocate themselves in a better place of their choice, be restrained to sell of the house or permitted to do it? In this regard, the pertinent observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish

Chandra Ahuja (Supra) are as under:-

“90. Before we close our discussion on Section 2(s),

we need to observe that the right to residence under Section

19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared

household especially when the daughter-in-law is pitted

against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. The senior

citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live

peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son

and daughter-in-law. While granting relief both in

application under Section 12 of the 2005 Act or in any civil

proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the

parties. The directions issued by the High Court [Ambika

Jain v. Ram Prakash Sharma, 2019 SCC OnLine Del

11886] in para 56 adequately balance the rights of both the

parties.”

21. Applying the afore-noted observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the case in hand, this Court finds that the impugned judgment dated 03.05.2021 suffers from no illegality or infirmity.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 CRL.M.C. 1327/2021 & CRL.M.A.7314/2021

VIBHUTI WADHWA SHARMA Vs KRISHNA SHARMA AND ANR. 

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Pronounced on: 17.05.2021

Print Page

Whether a wife can file domestic violence proceedings against parents in law if they were residing separately from her in distinct accommodation in physical proximity to their house?

 It is evident from the complaint that the petitioner was not sharing the household with the respondent No. 1 and 2 for a long time and she was living with respondent No. 3, her husband separately. As far as, house No. B-166 is concerned, it cannot be said that it became the shared household as the respondents No 1 and 2 were living separately in house No. B-121. It is also not the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 and 2 ever shifted to B-166 to live with their son and the petitioner. 

15. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 03-01-2015 wherein it has been observed by the Ld. Trial Court that no case of domestic violence, in view of the facts mentioned in the complaint is made out against respondents No. 1 and 2. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 

 Pronounced on : 01.06.2020 

 CRL.REV.P. 558/2015 

AMANPREET SANDHU Vs U.K. SHANDILYA 

 CORAM:  MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR

Print Page

When daughter in law is not entitled to get relief in domestic violence proceeding against her in laws?

From the 3 of 4 pleadings and record, it can be perused that the petitioners herein, who are in- laws of respondent No.1, are not joint in residence, while further taking into account that respondent No.1 had herself sworn in an affidavit as far back as in 2011 that no ill-treatment had been meted out to her by her husband or his family members in the divorce proceedings as well in the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. A reading of the complaint does not show that any incident amounting to domestic abuse as defined under the DV Act is set out against the petitioners herein after the year 2011 till such time as the petition was filed in the year 2015, which becomes a substantial ground for this Court to interfere. The complainant has also not been able to establish that there was a 'shared household' with the petitioners as the husband of the complainant- respondent was in a Government job and residing separately from the petitioners, which fact has not been controverted. The respondent has not been able to establish a "domestic relationship" as defined under Section 2(f) of the DV Act of 2005 to be able to sustain a complaint against the petitioner.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Hazura Singh And Ors vs Jaspreet Kaur And Ors on 24 January, 2020

CRM-M No.16389 of 2016 

CORAM: MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR Present: 

 Citation: 2020 P & H 107.

Print Page

When prosecution for offence U/S 498A and S 406 of IPC can be quashed against parents in law?

 We have seen the complaint very carefully. From a bare reading of the complaint it is apparent that the problem started barely after six months of the marriage. In paragraph 3 of the complaint, it is stated that all the accused came to complainant's parents house at Gidderbaha and asked her parents to give the complainant more gold and other articles as dowry otherwise they would leave the complainant there and Rajesh would be married second time. In paragraph 4, the complaint is against Rajesh in the sense that the accused Rajesh asked the complainant to hand over the ornaments and clothes to his parents lest they are lost in the way. On reaching to Delhi when the ornament were asked back by the complainant, they were not returned back. When we see the complaint as a whole it is basically against the accused Rajesh. All the allegations are against Rajesh. There is undoubtedly some reference to the present appellants, but what strikes us is that there are no particulars given as to date on which the ornaments were handed over, as to the exact number of ornaments or their description and as to the date when the ornaments were asked back and were refused. Even the weight of the ornaments is not mentioned in the complaint and it is a general and vague complaint that the ornaments were sometime given in the custody of the appellants and they were not returned. What strikes us more is that even in paragraph 10 of the complaint where the complainant says that she asked for her clothes and ornaments which were given to the accused and they refused to give these back, the date is significantly absent. It seems from the order taking cognizance that the learned Magistrate has mentioned about the version of the complainant is supported by Bhagwati and Dharampal to the fact that the ornaments were entrusted to Krishan Saroop and Rajesh while clothes were entrusted to Rakhi and they refused to hand over the same. Even their statements could not be better than the vague complaint. Even about the clothes, the date on which they were handed over to Rakhee who happens to be the daughter of the present appellants and the other details are very significantly absent. It was also the version of the complainant that she was beaten in support of which she has filed a certificate from AIIMS hospital, New Delhi. However, in the complaint, it is not seen as to on which date she was beaten and by whom. It is significant to note that the matter against the Rakhee, the 4th original accused has already been dropped as she was in fact not even the resident of the same house.

 In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.

 The High Court has merely mentioned that the allegation in the complaint are of retaining jewellery articles in possession of the husband and the petitioners. Now if the articles were in the possession of the husband, there is no question of the present appellants being in possession of the jewellery. This is apart from the fact that it has already been expressed by us that there is no mention of the date on which the said ornaments, if any, were entrusted to the appellants or even the date when they were demanded back and were refused to be given back by the appellants or any one of them. Insofar as the offence under Section 498A IPC is concerned, we do not find any material or allegation worth the name against the present appellants. All the allegations appear to be against the Rajesh.

Supreme Court of India

Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009

Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, Deepak Verma

REPORTABLE

 Citation:  2010CriLJ448, (2009)10SCC184, 

Print Page