Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right To Reside In Shared Household
The Kerala High Court dismissed a Petition filed by the in-laws of a widow who sought protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The Kerala High Court upheld a widow’s right to reside in a shared household.
The Court dismissed a Petition filed by the in-laws of a widow who sought protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), challenging the judgment of the Sessions Court, which had granted relief to the widow.
A Single Bench of Justice MB Snehalatha held, “One of the most crucial, progressive and empowering features of DV Act is the right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of ownership or title…This provision was introduced to prevent a common form of abuse that is, displacement and dispossession of women from her marital home. The right to residence recognise the importance of shelter and security as fundamental to a woman's dignity. This right is crucial for a woman's safety and dignity ensuring that she is not forcibly removed or homeless due to domestic abuse.”
Advocate K.I. Mayankutty Mather appeared for the Petitioners, while Advocate Abe Rajan represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The widow had filed a Petition under Section 12 of the DV Act contending that her in-laws tried to oust her and her children from the shared household.
The Magistrate initially dismissed the Petition, holding that the widow failed to prove any domestic relationship or that she was an 'aggrieved person'. However, the widow’s Appeal before the Sessions Court was allowed.
The in-laws challenged the Appellate Court's decision, reiterating their arguments that the widow failed to establish a domestic relationship or that she was an aggrieved person under the DV Act.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court clarified that “the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents in M.C that after the death of the husband, petitioner in M.C is residing at her parental house and therefore she is not an aggrieved person as defined under Section 2(a) of DV Act, is meritless. There is no merit in the contention put forward by the respondents in M.C that there is no domestic relationship between them and the petitioner is devoid of any merit.”
The Bench noted, “The evidence on record would show that petitioner is the wife of deceased Gopi; that after the marriage, she was residing in the shared household. Admittedly, the respondents in M.C are the brother-in-laws, sister-in-laws and mother-in-law of the petitioner. The definite case of the petitioner is that after the death of her husband Gopi, respondents who are her in-laws subjected her to cruelty and attempted to oust her from the shared household which is her matrimonial home and they are causing disturbance to her peaceful residence therein, which compelled her to approach the court seeking reliefs under the DV Act.”
The Court held, “The petitioner is an aggrieved person as defined under Section 2(a) of DV Act and she is in domestic relationship with the respondents as defined in Section 2(f) of the said Act. The house in question is her matrimonial home wherein after her marriage she was residing with her husband and children.”
The Bench remarked, “The very nature of the contentions taken by the respondents in M.C/revision petitioners would show that the cause of action spoken to by the petitioner in M.C that they are trying to oust her from the shared household and causing obstruction to her peaceful residence and entry therein is true. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was absolutely right in its finding that the petitioner is entitled to get an order restraining the respondents in M.C from committing any acts of domestic violence against the petitioner and her children and causing any obstruction from entering the shared household and residing there peacefully.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “This Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment in Crl.A No.183/2015 of the Sessions Court, Palakkad.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: X & Ors. v. Y & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:36088)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates K.I. Mayankutty Mather and P.P. Ramachandran
Respondents: Advocates Abe Rajan, Liju. M.P and Sajan Vargheese K.; Public Prosecutor T.V.Neema
