The Delhi High Court has ruled that a father-in-law cannot be held responsible under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act merely because he did not intervene in the conduct of his adult son.
Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while dismissing a woman’s challenge to a trial court decision that had removed her father-in-law from a domestic violence case.
The woman had alleged, among other things, that her father-in-law failed to intervene in her husband’s relationship with another woman. The High Court, however, said such an allegation by itself did not establish that the father-in-law had participated in or facilitated his son’s matrimonial misconduct.
“A father cannot be made liable under the DV Act merely because he did not control the conduct of his adult son,” the Court observed.
The couple had married in 2006, while the woman initiated domestic violence proceedings in 2019 against her husband and father-in-law, alleging verbal, emotional and economic abuse.
She claimed that her father-in-law had restricted her access to office and email facilities connected with a family-run partnership firm, supported his son during their marital dispute and forced her to leave the matrimonial home.
A magistrate had issued notice to the father-in-law in 2020. However, that decision was later overturned in 2023 after he challenged it in appeal. The woman subsequently approached the High Court.
While examining the allegations, the High Court found no material showing that the father-in-law had threatened her or taken any specific action to force her out of the matrimonial home.
The Court also considered the allegation of economic abuse. Although economic abuse is covered by the DV Act, the woman had not shown that she was denied her share or profits in the family partnership because of any specific act by her father-in-law.
Similarly, allegations that he was domineering and orthodox, and that he had shouted at, insulted or abused her, were found to be too general.
The Court noted that merely using expressions such as “insulted”, “shouted” and “abused” was insufficient without details of what was actually said or done and how that conduct caused humiliation, threat or mental harm.
Finding that the allegations did not disclose a domestic violence offence against the father-in-law, the High Court dismissed the woman’s plea and upheld his exclusion from the proceedings.