The court made the observations while dismissing an appeal of a woman against an order of a Metropolitan magistrate, who had rejected her claim to residence in the house owned by her in-laws.
A woman cannot claim the right to residence in the houses owned by her in-laws under the Domestic Violence Act as she can seek maintenance only from her husband, sons and daughters, a Delhi court has said.
"The wife has no right to claim residence in the house belonging to her mother-in-law or father-in-law and a woman has the right of maintenance only against her husband, sons and daughters and not against her in-laws," additional sessions judge Madhu Jain said.
The court made the observations while dismissing an appeal of a woman against an order of a Metropolitan magistrate, who had rejected her claim to residence in the house owned by her in-laws.
It said that the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been passed as a welfare measure and not to blackmail the other party.
"The purpose of the Domestic Violence Act or any other law which has been created for the well being of women is not to blackmail the other party or to use the courts as a forum to blackmail the other party or to exert pressure upon the other party to extort more money from him," the court said.
ASJ Jain noted that the wife was gainfully employed as teacher in a government school and can very well maintain herself.
"But for obvious reasons ie to claim the share in property of the parents of husband, she has filed the present petition as she has made not only her husband a party to this petition but also her father-in-law," the court said.
The court allowed the contention of the husband, who was working as librarian in a private school at Sonepat in Haryana saying that the particular property did not belong to him. He submitted that his wife always used to live with him in Sonepat from the first day of her marriage and she never came to the house of her in-laws.
"It is stated that the said house is not a shared property. It is a self-acquired property owned by the wife of the father-in-law and the husband has nothing to do with this property. He has never spent a single penny in purchase of that property," the court noted.
It said that the wife, who was a divorcee prior to the marriage, was more interested in the properties owned by her in-laws.
So far, as alternative accommodation was concerned, the wife and the husband were on equal footing as both of them were earning more or less Rs19,000 per month, the court said.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}