Vinay Varma v. Kanika Pasricha & Anr.

13. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dismissing the application under Order XII Rule 6. The submission of Mr. Arun Verma, ld. Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is that the application has been wrongly rejected as the daughter-in-law does not dispute the fact that the property does not belong to her husband and in fact also does not belong to her in-laws. Since the husband of the Defendant No.1 does not have any rights in the property, the application ought to have been allowed. According to ld. Senior Counsel, there is no triable issue in the present case. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Taruna Batra (supra).

14. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Harsh Jaidka, submits that the son is in collusion with the parents. It has been wrongly projected in the plaint that he does not live in the suit property. However, in reality he continues to live with the parents and, thus, the suit property continues to be her matrimonial home. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hiral P. Harsora & Ors. v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora & Ors., (2017) CRI.L.J. 509 which has interpreted the DV Act. He further submits that similar reliefs sought in the injunction application have also been rejected. He relies upon the order passed in the injunction application wherein the Trial Court has observed as under:

15. Mr. Jaidka, ld. counsel also submits that in the suit, issues have been framed and evidence by way of affidavit has also been filed. The case is at the stage of cross-examination of the Plaintiff. Thus, he submits that this is not a fit case for passing of decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Analysis and Findings

16. The Court has considered the rival submissions of the parties. Before coming to the merits of the dispute, it is necessary to review the various decisions dealing with the two statutes at hand. Supreme Court judgments

17. The lead decision which is also relied upon by the Petitioner is Taruna Batra (supra), wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:

30. No doubt, the definition of “shared household” in Section 2(s) of the Act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society.” The above judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court in 2007.

18. In Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel and Ors. vs Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and Ors. (decided on 14th March, 2008) AIR 2008 SC 2675, the Supreme Court considered a petition filed by the in-laws where it noticed that both the in-laws were very old and the daughter in law was permitted to pursue her remedies against her husband. The Court held as under: “24.The Domestic Violence Act provides for a higher right in favour of a wife. She not only acquires a right to be maintained but also there under acquires a right of residence. The right of residence is a higher right. The said right as per the legislation extends to joint properties in which the husband has a share.

25. Interpreting the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act this Court in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007)3SCC169 held that even a wife could not claim a right of residence in the property belonging to her mother-in-law, stating:

17. There is no such law in India like the British Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967, and in any case, the rights which may be available under any law can only be as against the husband and not against the father-in- law or motherin-law.

18. Here, the house in question belongs to the mother- in-law of Smt Taruna Batra and it does not belong to her husband Amit Batra. Hence, Smt Taruna Batra cannot claim any right to live in the said house.

19. Appellant 2, the mother-in-law of Smt Taruna Batra has stated that she had taken a loan for acquiring the house and it is not a joint family property. We see no reason to disbelieve this statement.....

28. The said orders might have been passed only on consideration that Sonalben is a harassed lady, but the fact that the appellant is also a much harassed lady was lost sight of. She has more sinned than sinning. Appellant and her husband are old. They suffer from various diseases. They have been able to show before the Court that they had to go to the United States of America for obtaining medical treatment. They, we would assume, have violated the conditions of grant of bail but the consequence therefore must be kept confined to the four corners of the statutes.....

43. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this Court we are of the opinion that the interest of justice shall be subserved if the impugned judgments are set aside with the following directions: i) The property in question shall be released from attachment. ii) The 3 rd respondent shall refund the sum of Rs. 1 lakhs to the respondent with interest @ 6% per annum. iii) The amount of Rs. 4 lakhs deposited by the 1st respondent shall be refunded to him immediately with interest accrued thereon. iv) The 3 rd respondent should be entitled to pursue her remedies against her husband in accordance with law. v) The Learned Magistrate before whom the cases filed by the 3d respondent are pending should bestow serious consideration of disposing of the same, as expeditiously as possible. vi) The 3 rd respondent shall bear the costs of the appellant which is quantified at Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) consolidated.

44. The appeals are allowed with the aforesaid directions.”

19. Recently, In Hiral P. Harsora & Ors. v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora & Ors., (supra), the Supreme Court analyzed the purpose of the DV Act including the Statement of Objects and Reasons. The Supreme Court struck down Section 2 (q) of the DV Act in view of the definition of „shared household‟ in Section 2 (s) and held that Section 2 (q) was restrictive in nature. The Supreme Court considered the scheme of the DV Act and in respect of `shared household‟ observed as under:

20. Post the judgment in Taruna Batra (supra) and Vimal Ben (supra) rendered by the Supreme Court there have been various decisions rendered by the Delhi High Court.

21. In Neetu Mittal v. Kanta Mittal & Ors., 2008 (106) DRJ 623, a Ld. Single Judge held that the parents/ in-laws have a right to turn the son and daughter-in-law out of the house if the property belongs to them. Only if it is an ancestral house, the son can enforce partition. The right of the woman to seek maintenance is only against the husband or her children but she cannot thrust herself against the parents of the husband. The Court observed as under:-

22. In Sardar Malkiat Singh v. Kanwaljit Kaur & Ors., 2010 (116) DRJ 295, the Ld. Single Judge held that the father-in-law has no obligation to maintain his daughter-in-law. In this judgment, the ld. Single Judge, following Taruna Batra (supra), observed in paragraph 17 as under: “…… The appellant is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property and at best the possession of the respondent No.1 during the subsistence of her marriage with the appellant's son could be said to be permissive in nature. This by itself cannot entitle the respondent No.1 to claim a right of residence against her father-in-law, who has no legal obligation to maintain his daughter-in-law during the lifetime of her husband, more so when the respondent No.1 has parted the company with her husband and is admittedly residing in Chandigarh since the year 1992.”

23. In Shumita Didi Sandhu v. Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Ors. (2010) 174 DLT 79(DB), the ld. Division Bench was considering a judgment of the Single Judge which had followed Taruna Batra (supra) and held that the inlaws home cannot be a „shared household‟ or the „matrimonial home‟ and hence the daughter in law has no legal right to stay in the house belonging to her parents in law. The ld. Division then approved the view of the Single Judge and followed Taruna Batra (supra). It concluded that the right of residence of the wife does not mean the right to reside in a particular property but would mean the right to reside in a commensurate property. The right of residence is not the same thing as a right to reside in a particular property which the appellant refers to as her 'matrimonial home'. The Single Judge‟s judgment was upheld and it was observed that the learned single Judge had amply protected the plaintiff by directing that she would not be evicted from the premises in question without following the due process of law.

24. In Smt Preeti Satija v.Smt. Raj Kumari & Anr., 2014 SCC Online Del 188, however, another ld. Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that even a tenanted property of the in-laws where the husband has no share, right, interest or title would constitute „shared household‟. The ld. Division Bench held that the right of residence would exist irrespective of whether the house is owned by the in-laws or is merely tenanted. Even if they are tenants, the Court observed that the DV Act is a secular legislation. The Court also considered the judgment in Taruna Batra (supra) and finally concluded as under:

25. Thereafter, in Navneet Arora v. Surender Kaur and Ors, 2014 SCC Online Del 7617, the ld. Division Bench considered Taruna Batra (supra) and Preeti Satija (supra) and recognized the daughter-in-law‟s right to residence. This judgment distinguished Taruna Batra (supra) by holding that Taruna Batra would be applicable only in a fact situation where she has lived with the husband separately but not as a member of the joint family. It was held that the DV Act gives statutory protection to the right of the wife for a roof. Since the parties were living together with their parents and were conducting joint business, the property would be „shared household‟. The observations of the Division Bench are as under:

26. In Ekta Arora v. Ajay Arora & Anr., AIR 2015 Del 180, the motherin-law was held to be the absolute owner of the property and hence the property could not be a „shared household‟. The Court held that the property belongs to the mother-in-law and accordingly, observed as under:

property. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 25.08.2008 passed by the learned ASJ, whereby the order on residence dated 29.09.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.”

27. In Shilpa Tandon v. Harish Chand Tandon & Anr., [in RFA (OS) 113/2015 decided on 15th November, 2016] - the Court followed the judgment in Navneet Arora (supra) and held that the daughter in law had a right of residence in the „shared household‟, though the property belonged to the father-in-law. However, the Court also observed that a workable solution needs to be found in order to ensure that everyday acrimony between the in-laws and the daughter-in-law does not continue. Thus, the Court modified the impugned decree and order and directed as under:

28. In Anita Barreja v. Jagdish Lal Barreja [CM(M) No. 1043/2016 decided on 26.09.2017], a Ld. Single Judge of the Delhi High Court was concerned with the PSC Act and an order passed by the maintenance tribunal under the said Act and upheld the order by which the tribunal had directed the daughter-in-law to vacate the property.

29. In Darshna v.Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.,[ LPA 537/2018 decided on 03rd October, 2018] and Sunny Paul v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.253 (2018) DLT 410, the ld. Division Benches of this Court again considered the provisions of the PSC Act. In both these cases, the rights of the in-laws to seek eviction of the son or daughter-in-law from their own property was upheld on an interpretation of the PSC Act and the Rules of 2017 enacted in Delhi under the said Act. The ld. Division Bench of this Court considered a case arising under the PSC Act wherein the District Magistrate, in proceedings arising under the said Act, had directed the eviction of the daughter-in-law. The writ petition was dismissed and the ld. Division Bench was considering the LPA. In the said judgment, the ld. Division Bench held that in view of the Rule 22(3)(1)(i) of Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens (Amendment) Rules, 2017, the son and the daughter-in-law could not claim any right in the property. The ld. Division Bench observed as under:

Finally, the ld. Division Bench observed as under:

Thus, the ld. Division Bench upheld the rights of the parents/in-laws to evict the children under Rule 22(3)(1)(i).

30. Recently, two ld. Single Judges in Dr. Rachna Khanna Singh v. Santosh S. P. Singh & Ors. (2019) SCC OnLine Del 8696 and Shachi Mahajan v. Santosh Mahajan, 257 (2019) DLT 152 considered the provisions of the DV Act. In Dr. Rachna Khana Singh (supra) the facts involved the grandson and grand daughter-in-law through the daughter of Ms. Santosh S. P. Singh. The question was whether the grand daughter-inlaw could claim the right of residence. Following Taruna Batra (supra) it was held that the property is not a „shared household‟. However, the Court permitted the daughter-in-law to avail of her remedies under the DV Act. The observations of the Ld. Single Judge are as under:

31. In Shachi Mahajan (supra) the ld. Single Judge of this Court held that documents on record showed that the daughter-in-law was sharing the kitchen and common areas. However, since the suit property has been sold during the pendency of the proceedings, various directions including the directions for procuring an alternate residence for the daughter-in-law along with some amount to be deposited was passed by the Court. Bombay High Court judgments

32. In Mrs. Sarika Mahendra Sureka v. Mr. Mahendra & Anr. [Appeal from order No.910 of 2014 decided on 19th September 2016], the divorce proceedings between the son and daughter-in-law were pending. The Family Court had granted interim protection to the daughter-in-law, thus, at the interim stage the Bombay High Court had thought it appropriate not to protect her possession. The Bombay High Court distinguished Taruna Batra (supra) in this case and followed Preeti Satija (supra) of the Delhi High Court.

33. In Roma Rajesh Tiwari v. Rajesh Dinanath Tiwari, [Writ Pet. No.10696 of 2017 decided on 12th October, 2017], again the Bombay High Court held that the title or right in property is not of relevance in the DV Act as the wife‟s right to reside in the matrimonial home cannot be defeated if the same does not belong to the husband. It further held once it is a „shared household‟ and they were in a matrimonial relationship, the wife gets a right to reside. The Bombay High Court held that the shifting of the son from the residence was a ploy. The house where the daughter-in-law resides would have to be considered as matrimonial home or „shared household‟ under Section 2(s) of the DV Act. The Court observed as under: “18... The question of title or proprietary right in the property is not at all of relevance, when the provisions of the DV Act; especially Section 19 thereof, are to be considered. As a matter of fact, it needs to be emphasized that, as the wife‟s right to reside in the matrimonial home was being defeated on this very ground that the house does not belong to the husband or does not stand in his name, this DV Act was brought in the Statute Book with the specific and clear language and the unequivocal Clause that the „title of the husband or that of the family members to the said flat‟, is totally irrelevant. It is also irrelevant whether the Respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household. The moment it is proved that it was a shared household, as both of them had, in their matrimonial relationship, i.e. domestic relationship, resided together there and in this case, upto the disputes arose, it follows that the Petitioner-wife gets right to reside therein and, therefore, to get the order of interim injunction, restraining Respondent-husband from dispossessing her, or, in any other manner, disturbing her possession from the said flat.” These two cases arose out of a civil suit and notice of motion seeking injunction and a petition for divorce, respectively.

34. In Dattatrey Shivaji Mane v. Lilabai Shivaji Mane and Ors. AIR 2018 Bom 229, the Bombay High Court was considering an order passed by the maintenance tribunal under the PSC Act, in a writ petition. The Court observed therein that the petition of the daughter-in-law under the DV Act was dismissed for default. The Court then considered the decision of the Delhi High Court in Sunny Paul (Supra) and held that once the senior citizen is the owner of the property, the possession of the senior citizen cannot be interfered with. Thus, the tribunal‟s order directing the son and his family to vacate the property was upheld. In this judgment the objects and reasons of the PSC Act were considered in detail by the Court. Thus, the view of the Bombay High Court is that the question of title or proprietary right is of no relevance. Kerala High Court

35. In Hashir v. Shima ILR 2015 (2) Kerala 855, the Kerala High Court was considering the provisions of the DV Act and the definition of „shared household‟ and followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Taruna Batra (supra) to hold that a residence belonging to the in-laws would not be a „shared household‟. Punjab and Haryana High Court

36. In two judgments, i.e., Major Harmohinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. (LPA No. 1588 of 2014 decided on 14.10.2014) and Hamina Kang v. District Magistrate (U.T.) and Ors 2016(2) Crimes 517 (P&H), the Punjab and Haryana High Court considered the DV Act and the PSC Act. In Harmohinder Singh (supra), the Court observed as under: “The provisions of the Act of 2007 and the Act of 2005, referred to above, cannot be used for cross purposes, one annihilating the other. A parent who invokes the provisions of the Act of 2007 cannot create a situation that makes irrelevant the right of a female for securing a protection which is guaranteed under the Act of

2005. The provisons of the protection which is contemplated under Chapter V is an empowering provision for the welfare of a senior citizen that must be read cohesively that the right of a woman to be protected which is guaranteed under the Act of 2005.” The Court upheld the right of the divorced wife who was given protection under the DV act. Thus, the rights of the in-laws to invoke the PSC Act was recognised.

37. However, subsequently, in Hamina Kang(supra) an order of the tribunal under the PSC Act was considered in the context of the daughter-inlaw who had filed a petition under the DV Act. The Court considered the objects and purposes of the 2007 Act. The Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reviewed various judgments including Taruna Batra (supra), Vimal Ben(supra), Navneet Arora (supra), Preeti Satija (supra) and Hashir (supra) of the Kerala High Court. The provisions of the PSC and the DV Act were considered. The Court finally agreed with the view of the Kerala High Court and differed from the view of the Delhi High Court. It concluded that a house owned by a father-in-law is not a „shared household‟ in which the daughter-in-law has a right of residence. The Court observed that no right of the 2005 DV Act is sought to be nullified by the PSC Act. A status quo order had been passed in the DV Act. However, finally, the Court directed the in-laws to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000 /- per month to their daughter-in-law for a period of one year and permitted her to seek remedies against her husband. Gujarat High Court

38. In Jayantram Vallabhdas Meswania v. Vallabhdas Govindram Meswania AIR 2013 Guj 160, the tribunal under the PSC Act had directed the son to hand over possession to his father. The Court again considered the provisions of the PSC Act and held that a father who is not earning and has no money to sustain can make an application under Section 5 of the Act to claim maintenance since the son is in possession of the property of the father and is not taking sufficient care and not providing sufficient maintenance. Thus, the father is entitled to have his own income from the property and the order of eviction from the son was upheld. Analysis of case law

39. The analysis of the decisions by various High Courts shows that after the judgment of Taruna Batra (supra) by the Supreme Court which dealt with the DV Act, there have been divergent views taken in the manner in which Taruna Batra is to be applied. The Delhi High Court in Navneet Arora (supra) distinguished Taruna Batra and held that Taruna Batra would be applicable only in the facts where the son and daughter in law were not residing as members of the `shared household‟ since the residence and kitchen were separated. Similar view is taken in Preeti Satija (supra) by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court. However, in Shumita Didi Sandhu (supra) it was held that in-laws home would not be a „shared household.

40. The Kerala High Court in Hashir (supra) held that the manner in which the Delhi High Court distinguishes Taruna Batra (supra) would not be correct inasmuch as the Supreme Court has clearly laid down the principles of defining `shared household‟ in Taruna Batra (supra). The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hamina Kang v. District Magistrate (U.T.) and Ors (supra) agreed with the view of the Kerala High Court in Hashir (supra) and followed the view of the Supreme Court in Taruna Batra (supra). The Provisions of the two Acts

41. The judgments and decisions of various Courts discussed above are not exhaustive in nature.

42. The DV Act was enacted in 2005 and has been the subject matter of innumerable decisions. One of the objects of the DV Act is to provide for the rights of women to reside in their „matrimonial home‟ or „shared household‟ irrespective of whether their husband or the in-laws have a title to the property. The DV Act, thus, protects one of the three basic necessities of human life – viz. shelter, for the woman. Thus, in several proceedings, the right of the daughter-in-law to reside in her „matrimonial home‟ or „shared household‟ has been recognised.

43. The PSC Act of 2007 was not the subject matter of the Supreme Court decisions either in Taruna Batra (supra) or in Vimal Ben (supra). The said Act has been enacted to provide maintenance to parents and senior citizens. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that parents and senior citizens are not subjected to harassment by their children in any manner. An obligation has been cast on the children to maintain senior citizens if the said children are in possession of the property of the parent or lay claims to inherit the property of the parents. This is clear from a reading of Section 4(4) of the PSC Act which reads as under: “(4) Any person being a relative of a senior citizen and having sufficient means shall maintain such senior citizen provided he is in possession of the property of such senior citizen or he would inherit the property of such senior citizen: Provided that where more than one relatives are entitled to inherit the property of a senior citizen, the maintenance shall be payable by such relative in the proportion in which they would inherit his property.” A specific maintenance tribunal has also been constituted under Section 7 for senior citizens to make applications for maintenance. The whole purpose of this Act is to ensure that children do not simply take control of the assets of their parents while ignoring their well-being. In Delhi, the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 has also been enacted which permits impleadment of children and relatives. Standards have been set out in the rules for payment of maintenance. These Rules have been amended from time to time.

44. The question, however, is as to how the objectives and provisions of these two Acts are to operate, considering the overlapping nature of the relationships which they seek to govern. Both are special statutes. While, the daughter-in-law‟s right to residence and a roof over her head is extremely important, the parent‟s right to enjoy their own property and earn income from the same is also equally important. There can be multitudinal situations which may arise before Courts wherein a view would have to be taken as to which rights are to be preferred over the other. This is so because as captured in paragraph 4 above there are various categories of cases and various fact situations wherein these disputes would arise.

45. Though, in Taruna Batra (supra) the Supreme Court did not have the occasion to consider the later enacted PSC Act, 2007, the Court struck a balance between the rights of the parents/ in-laws and the rights of the daughter-in-law by holding that the „shared household‟ would not include property belonging to the relatives of the husband namely, the in-laws.

46. However, later decisions of various High Courts have, while giving divergent opinions on the concept of `shared household‟, followed one uniform pattern in order to protect the daughter-in-law and to provide for a dignified roof/ shelter for her. The question then arises as to whether the obligation of providing the shelter or roof is upon the in-laws or upon the husband of the daughter-in-law i.e., the son. Some broad guidelines as set out below, can be followed by Courts in order to strike a balance between the PSC Act and the DV Act:

1. The court/tribunal has to first ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the son‟s/ daughter‟s family.

2. If the case involves eviction of a daughter in law, the court has to also ascertain whether the daughter-in-law was living as part of a joint family.

3. If the relationship is acrimonious, then the parents ought to be permitted to seek eviction of the son/daughter-in-law or daughter/sonin-law from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife would continue in terms of the principles under the DV Act.

4. If the relationship between the parents and the son are peaceful or if the parents are seen colluding with their son, then, an obligation to maintain and to provide for the shelter for the daughter-in-law would remain both upon the in-laws and the husband especially if they were living as part of a joint family. In such a situation, while parents would be entitled to seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from their property, an alternative reasonable accommodation would have to be provided to her.

5. In case the son or his family is ill-treating the parents then the parents would be entitled to seek unconditional eviction from their property so that they can live a peaceful life and also put the property to use for their generating income and for their own expenses for daily living.

6. If the son has abandoned both the parents and his own wife/children, then if the son‟s family was living as part of a joint family prior to the breakdown of relationships, the parents would be entitled to seek possession from their daughter-in-law, however, for a reasonable period they would have to provide some shelter to the daughter-in-law during which time she is able to seek her remedies against her husband. On facts of the present case

47. The present suit does not specifically arise out of any proceedings under the DV Act nor under the PSC. Act. It is a civil suit for mandatory injunction, wherein, the relief being sought is in effect for eviction of the daughter-in-law. There is a dispute as to whether the son is actually living with the parents or not. The property does not even belong to the parents/ in-laws and in fact belongs to the maternal grand parent (Nana) of the husband of the Defendant i.e., the father-in-law of the Plaintiff Shri Vinay Varma. By any stretch of imagination, this property cannot constitute `shared household‟ under Section 2 (s) of the DV Act. Insofar as the question of admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is concerned, this Court holds that there has been no admission by the daughter-in-law who has clearly challenged the rights of the father-in-law to maintain the suit.

48. Keeping in mind the provisions of the PSC Act as well, the Plaintiff does have a right to secure a peaceful life for himself and his wife. However, there is no doubt that the son is now living with his grandparents which is the best case of the Plaintiff. Thus, the relationship between the inlaws and the parents and the son does not seem to be acrimonious. The daughter-in-law was clearly living with her in-laws and her husband till disputes arose between her and her husband.

49. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that a mechanism would have to be devised to ensure that both the in-laws and the daughter-in-law live peacefully while the matrimonial disputes are resolved. The property in which the daughter-in-law has been residing is located in a posh South Delhi Colony of Safdarjung Enclave. She is occupying the property and she has no children. The relationship between the parties is not congenial. Considering this factual background, the following directions are issued;

1. The Plaintiff - Mr. Vinay Varma/ his son Mr. U.K. Varma shall jointly or severally pay a total sum of Rs.50,000/- per month to the daughter-inlaw in order to enable her to identify a commensurate residence for herself.

2. The said sum shall be paid to the daughter-in-law on a monthly basis on or before the tenth of every month directly into her bank account.

3. Upon the said payment being commenced, the daughter-in-law – Defendant would vacate the suit property within a period of three months.

50. Though the present is a civil suit, this Court observes that the said two statutes i.e., the DV Act and the PSC Act, would have to be borne in mind while passing orders, maintaining the balance between two warring parties, namely the parents/in-laws and children/their families. The conflict between the rights of the parents and the rights of the daughter-in-law which have arisen out of the DV Act and the PSC Act requires to be resolved. The facts of each case are different as there could be cases where the parents or senior citizens do not wish to permit their son and daughter-in-law to continue in their property due to issues of acrimony and misunderstanding. In such cases also, the provisions of the DV Act may be invoked by the son/daughter-in-law subjecting the parents to enormous suffering and frustration. While the right of residence of the daughter-in-law is to be recognized, the same also needs to be balanced depending upon the facts of each case with the right of the peaceful living of the parents as well. In several cases, these rights have conflicted with each other and they have flooded the Criminal and Civil Courts in abundance.

51. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Preeti Satija (supra) has been challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9723/2014. Thereafter, in Shabnam Ahmed v. Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.228/2019, the Supreme Court is also considering the same issue. Considering that the issues are now pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, in the present case, certificate of fitness to appeal under Articles 133(1)(a) and 134A of the Constitution of India, is granted.

52. The petition is allowed in the above terms and all pending applications are also disposed of. No order as to costs.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE