New Delhi, Sep 26 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with an order directing the eviction of a widowed daughter-in-law from the house of her senior citizen in-laws, observing that she failed to show that she was dutifully taking care of them.
Justice Yashwant Varma noted that two authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act “concurrently found substance in the allegations of mental torture, ill-treatment and harassment” made by the elderly couple against her.
The judge also said that the concept of “shared household” under the domestic violence law cannot be extended to situations where the marriage might have annulled, dissolved, or no longer subsists.
The court’s observation came on a petition by the widowed woman challenging the orders of eviction passed by the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner under the Senior Citizens Act on a complaint by her in-laws.
“The facts as recorded by the two authorities establish that ultimately the senior citizens were constrained to abandon their own house and move to the residence of the elder son. In the entire course of proceeding as they unfolded before the two authorities, the petitioner failed to lay any evidence or establish that she was dutifully looking after the interest of the senior citizens or taking care of them,” said the court in its order dated September 23.
Noting that the Senior Citizen Act was introduced to “guarantee and safeguard the welfare of parents and senior citizens”, the court ordered: ” In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the view as taken by the authorities while considering the complaint made under the 2007 Act warrants no interference by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.” In the complaint, the in-laws alleged victimisation and harassment at the hands of the petitioner. They alleged that their deceased son had gone into a state of depression on account of alleged indiscretions committed by the petitioner while they were married and the marital relations had broken down before he passed away in 2013.
The petitioner told the high court that the property in question was a “shared household” and she was thus entitled in law to reside there while claiming that there was no evidence of the alleged ill-treatment or harassment.
Justice Varma stated that a “shared household” essentially secures the right of residence of an estranged wife while litigation is ongoing so that she is not left in a state of destitution and in the present case, there is no “protection” order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act recognising the right of residence of the petitioner in the property.
“The concept of a shared household as provisioned for under the PWDV Act (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005), is essentially to secure the right of residence of an estranged wife while litigation is ongoing. The provisions in that regard incorporated in that enactment are essentially to ensure that the wife is not left in a state of destitution and thrown out of the marital home to fend for herself.
“Those principles cannot be countenanced to extend even to situations where the marriage itself may have come to be annulled, dissolved, or where it no longer subsists,” the court said. PTI ADS ADS RKS RKS
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Source: The Print
