Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

A Delhi Court recently directed a man and his wife to vacate his parents' house. It was alleged by man's mother that the man and his wife had been torturing and harassing her and in addition to that, they brought a dog home without her consent. 

The mother had claimed that her son was using this dog to make her uncomfortable and uneasy in her own house and he used to instigate the dog to attack her. 

Passing the order on mother's criminal appeal filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) against the order of the lower court allowing her son and daughter-in-law to reside in a room of her house, Additional Sessions Judge Arul Verma restrained the son and daughter-in-law in toto from entering or staying in mother's house. 

Court observed that in the instant case, the parents were already suffering from various ailments and the stress caused by their son was only adding to their woes. Referring to the issue of the dog, Court said,

"Ironically the bone of contention was also the dog 'Luv'. The mother expressed that she suffers from respiratory ailments and probably the presence of the dog was unnerving for her. Some people are dog-lovers while some may have an aversion, and even abhor their very presence. In this context, the intrusion of the dog in the prayer room or the kitchen may very well be disconcerting to the mother."

Tabling the decision, Court also considered the factum of availability of a separate accommodation to the man and his wife. Court noted that there is another house in the name of man's wife and if the couple moved to that house, it would only bring peace and harmony.

The restraint order has been passed only as an interim measure. Court said that it will be in force only till the matter is finally disposed of by the Trial Court where legal proceedings under the PWDV Act, initiated by the mother, are pending. 

Case Title: Manju Mala Pandey v. Pankaj Pandey