Bombay HC Rules Women Belong In Matrimonial House Despite In-Law Discord

The Bombay High Court stated that a woman cannot be ousted from her matrimonial home just to preserve the peace of the in-laws. This would violate her rights under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Read on to learn more about the judgement. The bench of Justice Sandeep Marne was hearing a plea filed by a woman who challenged the eviction order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act. She alleged that the forum was being misused by her in-laws to evict her out of her matrimonial house with her husband's help. 

Why Women can't be Ousted from Matrimonial houses for the 'Peace' of In-Laws

The bench of the high court said that the in-laws have the right to maintain their mental peace, but not at the cost of violating the rights of their DIL under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act.

"No doubt, senior citizens are entitled to reside in their own house in peace and without any disturbance on account of marital discord between a daughter-in-law and her husband. But at the same time, the machinery under the Senior Citizens Act cannot be used for the purpose of defeating the rights of a woman under Section 17 of the DV Act," the court said. 

As per the case, the wife married her husband in 1997. The couple was living in a house that was in the name of the petitioner's mother-in-law. Due to some matrimonial discord, the Tribunal passed an order for the couple to leave the house in 2023. However, the husband didn't vacate the house or challenge the order and continued to live with his parents.  This led the high court to conclude that the eviction order was only a ploy to kick the woman out of the house. 

"She has no other place to reside. Therefore, she cannot be rendered homeless to ensure the peace of mind of the senior citizens," the court said. 

The court said that a woman living in a house that is registered under her husband's name would be entitled to protection from being ousted from such accommodation. However, the court also said that a woman is entitled to protection even in the house owned by her in-laws. 

Why is a Balanced Approach Required

The court explained, "Does it mean that a wife staying separately from her in-laws enjoys better protection than the one who chooses to reside in a joint family with her in-laws? The answer to the question would obviously be in the negative. Therefore, where such a situation arises when a contest is noticed between the rights of senior citizens and a woman, a balancing act needs to be done, and the rights of the senior citizens cannot be decided in isolation."

Hence, the high court quashed the tribunal's eviction order. It also noted that the plea of the woman under the Domestic Violence Act to remain in the shared household is still pending with the magistrate and said that the magistrate should deal with her plea as soon as possible. 

The case reminds me of the popular debate among women today about whether they would live with their in-laws after marriage or not. Many women deny and say that they would marry only on the condition that the husband lives with her away from his parents. The logic behind this is the fact that if women are supposed to leave their parents after marriage, then why not men? 

But our society is not as developed as the thoughts of the women of today. It will shame such women and call them family-breakers. However, the same society will never raise a finger at the in-laws, who make it impossible for the DILs to stay with them.

A minor inconvenience is enough for in-laws to criticise the DILs as someone who doesn't belong to the family. DILs are never accepted as the family's members, no matter how much they contribute to the family's happiness. DILs are burdened with unreasonable expectations by the in-laws, and so it is obvious that in-laws will feel violated when those are not met. Why doesn't society call the in-laws then family-breakers? Why must the DILs always make the sacrifice and yet face criticism for minor mistakes? Shouldn't the in-laws try to be more accepting of the DILs?

The court's judgement is remarkable because it sheds light on the idea that women belong to their matrimonial houses as much as their husbands. They have married into the family and, hence, have the right to everything that the family owns. In-laws cannot just wake up one day and decide to oust their DILs from the house. It is not a scene of Karan Johar's family drama. Women can seek legal support, which is now opening its doors to solve issues that have gripped women for ages. 

I just want to sign off with one question: If a DIL is causing harm to the mental peace of the in-laws, then why not normalise the 'radical' idea of husbands and wives staying away from their parents? That way, no one is shamed or violated in any manner. 

Views expressed are the author's own.