Father-in-law can't be held liable for adult son's domestic violence, rules Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court held that a father-in-law cannot be prosecuted under the Domestic Violence Act for merely failing to control his adult son. The ruling underlined that liability must rest on specific facts showing abuse or a legally protected deprivation.

In Short

• Delhi HC rules father-in-law not liable under Domestic Violence Act for adult son's conduct
• Court dismisses woman's plea against father-in-law in domestic violence case
• High Court says domestic relationship alone insufficient for liability under the Act

The Delhi High Court has said that a woman's father-in-law cannot be held liable under the Domestic Violence Act merely for failing to control the conduct of his adult son. The court made the observation while dismissing a woman’s plea against a lower court order that had declined to proceed against her father-in-law on allegations of domestic violence.

Justice Madhu Jain said the law applies to conduct that causes or threatens physical or mental harm, including verbal, emotional and economic abuse, but a domestic relationship by itself is not enough to attract its provisions. The court found that the father-in-law had no role in the alleged matrimonial misconduct cited by the petitioner.

The petitioner had alleged that her father-in-law failed to act against her estranged husband over his involvement with another woman. Referring to this, the court said, “A father cannot be made liable under the DV (Domestic Violence) Act merely because he did not control the conduct of his adult son”.

In the order passed in August, the court also noted that the petitioner and her father-in-law shared a business relationship as partners in a firm. It said that while a commercial dispute is not automatically outside the scope of Section 3 of the Act, it must be shown that the woman was denied a resource protected under the law.

The court said the facts placed before it did not show any threat of domestic violence by the father-in-law. It added that although the petitioner alleged that his conduct amounted to “insult, ridicule, humiliation or threat”, no supporting facts had been stated.

“The words ‘insulted’, ‘shouted’ and ‘abused’ are conclusions. Without the facts underlying them, they do not make out verbal or emotional abuse under Section 3,” the court held.

The high court thus upheld the view that the father-in-law could not be proceeded against under the Domestic Violence Act on the material placed before it, saying there was no factual basis to link him to the alleged acts of domestic violence.

- Ends