Father-in-Law Cannot Face Domestic Violence Case for Failing to Control Adult Son: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that a father-in-law cannot face domestic violence liability merely for failing to control his adult son.

What did the woman allege?

Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while considering a woman’s challenge to a trial court order that had quashed a domestic violence case against her father-in-law.

The couple married in 2006. In 2019, the wife filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against her husband and father-in-law, alleging verbal, emotional and economic abuse.

Among other allegations, she claimed that her father-in-law restricted her access to the office and email facilities of a family-run partnership firm, sided with her husband during matrimonial discord and compelled her to leave the matrimonial home.

She also alleged that he failed to intervene over his son’s involvement with another woman. The High Court, however, said such an allegation did not by itself amount to the father-in-law participating in his son’s alleged matrimonial misconduct.

FCRF Launches CP-FRM to Build India’s Next Generation of Fraud Risk Professionals

Why did the court reject liability?

The High Court said a father cannot be made liable under the Domestic Violence Act merely because he did not control the conduct of his adult son.

A magistrate had issued notice to the father-in-law in the domestic violence case in 2020. That order was set aside in 2023 on an appeal filed by him, following which the complainant approached the High Court.

Before the High Court, the father-in-law maintained that he could not be held accountable for the actions of his adult son. The court found that the woman’s allegations did not indicate any threat or steps taken by the father-in-law to remove her from the matrimonial home.

What did the court say about economic abuse?

The High Court acknowledged that economic abuse is punishable under the Domestic Violence Act. However, it found nothing to indicate that the woman had been deprived of her shares and profits in the partnership firm because of her father-in-law’s actions.

The court also examined allegations that the father-in-law was dominating and orthodox and had shouted at or insulted her.

It found these claims vague because they did not identify any specific incident. The court said the application did not explain what was allegedly said or how the conduct amounted to insult, ridicule, humiliation, threat or otherwise caused mental harm.

The words “insulted”, “shouted” and “abused”, without the underlying facts, were described as conclusions that did not establish verbal or emotional abuse.

Why was the plea dismissed?

After considering the allegations, the High Court concluded that no domestic violence case was made out against the woman’s father-in-law and dismissed her plea. The ruling distinguished between allegations directed at a family member’s own conduct and an attempt to impose responsibility on that person for the independent conduct of another adult.

The court’s reasoning centred on whether specific acts attributable to the father-in-law met the requirements of domestic violence. It found that the allegations concerning his son’s conduct, the partnership firm’s financial benefits and claims of verbal or emotional abuse did not establish such a case against him.

The High Court therefore declined to interfere with the order that had set aside the proceedings against the father-in-law.