Is a Father-in-Law Liable Under the DV Act for Failing To Control His Adult Son? Delhi High Court Answers
The Delhi High Court ruled that a father-in-law cannot be held liable under the DV Act solely for failing to control his adult son, dismissing a woman's plea.'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 in its August 19 order. Scroll below to know more.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a woman cannot hold her father-in-law legally responsible under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act solely because he failed to control or police the conduct of his adult son. Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while dismissing a womanâs plea that challenged a trial court order quashing a domestic violence case with respect to her father-in-law.
Background of the Dispute
The couple was married in 2006. Years later, in 2019, the wife filed a formal domestic violence complaint against both her husband and father-in-law, alleging verbal, emotional, and economic abuse, reports Bar and Bench. Can Muslim Personal Law Protect Husband From POCSO Case Over Minor Wife? Delhi High Court Answers.
Among her claims, the woman alleged that her father-in-law failed to interfere with or stop his son's alleged involvement with another woman. She further claimed that he sided with her husband during marital discords, restricted her access to office and email facilities within a family-run partnership firm, and compelled her to leave the matrimonial home. In 2020, a magistrate initially issued a notice to the father-in-law. However, that order was set aside in 2023 following an appeal by the father-in-law, prompting the wife to approach the High Court.
Court's Observations on Adult Conduct and Vague Allegations
During the proceedings, the High Court emphasised that a father cannot be held liable under the statute simply for a lack of oversight over an adult child's personal choices. âA father cannot be made liable under the DV Act merely because he did not control the conduct of his adult son,â the Court observed in its August 19 order. The bench noted that the wife's accusations did not establish any active participation by the father-in-law in the alleged matrimonial misconduct, nor did records indicate any steps or direct threats by him to evict her from the house.
Addressing the claims of economic and emotional abuse, the Court acknowledged that economic deprivation is punishable under the DV Act. However, it found no evidence showing she was unlawfully deprived of profits or shares in the family partnership firm due to the father-in-law's actions. Furthermore, the bench pointed out that broad assertions labelling him as orthodox or dominating, along with claims that he "shouted" or "insulted" her, lacked specific factual backing. Ajeet Bhartiâs Anticipatory Bail Plea Rejected by Delhi High Court in SC/ST Act Case.
"The application does not state what was said or how the conduct amounted to insult, ridicule, humiliation or threat, or otherwise caused mental harm. The words âinsultedâ, âshoutedâ and âabusedâ are conclusions. Without the facts underlying them, they do not make out verbal or emotional abuse," the Court stated. Concluding that the allegations failed to satisfy the legal threshold against the relative, the High Court dismissed the petition.
(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Oct 04, 2026 03:36 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).
