Read Time: 06 minutes

Dismissing an appeal filed by a daughter in law and son implicating father-in-law in a domestic violence case claiming share in a suit property, the Delhi High Court has observed that "While the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, 2005) 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 observation was made by a single judge bench of Justice Pratibha Singh.

Dismissing and upholding the order of the Trial Court the High Court said “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.”

The facts of the case lie in a suit instituted by one Ganga Saran before the Trial Court against both his son and his daughter-in-law in relation to the suit property purchased by Saran in 2011.  

In the written statement filed before the Trial Court, the son and daughter in law claimed that the suit property was bought using the funds that were generated out of the sale of the earlier property, to which the son had a right and it did not exclusively belong to the plaintiff.

The Trial Court, however, recognized that the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the said property and the son and daughter-in-law  were merely licensees. The same was upheld by the first appellate Court after which the son and daughter in law filed an appeal before the High Court.

The High Court pointing at the written submissions of the daughter in law alleging a case of domestic violence against the father in law observed that the pleas were very generalised in nature, and clearly appeared to be pleas which are taken to highlight the domestic problem within the family members rather than to set up a case under the DV Act. 

The Court said, “Admittedly, there are no complaints that have been preferred against the father-in-law and there are no cases filed or pending under the DV Act, or any other legislation at the instance of the daughter-in-law. Remote allegations against the brother i.e., the devar, in the written statement, would not result in a finding of ‘shared household’, where the daughter-in-law, by herself, would have to be given a right of residence.”

Case Title: Aarti Sharma and Anr vs Ganga Saran