Recently, the Kerala High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging a Sessions Court order that had granted protection and residence rights to a widow under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The High Court upheld the decision that the woman, being an “aggrieved person,” had a right to reside in the shared household despite owning separate property or living at her parental home. The Court observed that “one of the most empowering features of the Act is a woman’s right to reside in the shared household, regardless of ownership.”
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, after the death of her husband, was allegedly subjected to cruelty and was being forcefully ousted from the shared household by her in-laws. She approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking protection and residence orders. However, the Magistrate dismissed her petition, stating she failed to establish a domestic relationship or prove herself to be an aggrieved person under the Act. Aggrieved by this, she filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, which reversed the Magistrate's decision and granted the reliefs sought, prompting the in-laws to challenge it before the High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The revision petitioners, who were respondents in the DV case, contended that the woman was not entitled to relief under the DV Act as she was living at her parental home and not in the shared household. They argued that since she owned separate property and had not lived with them after her husband’s death, there existed neither a domestic relationship nor an incident of domestic violence. Therefore, they claimed, the Sessions Court erred in granting the residence and protection orders.
Observations of the Court:
The Court categorically rejected the arguments of the revision petitioners, finding them devoid of merit. It observed that “the right to reside in the shared household is not contingent upon ownership, possession, or title, rather, it is rooted in the very fabric of the domestic relationship.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s authoritative ruling in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, the Court noted that “even if a woman is not physically residing with the in-laws at the time of seeking relief, she does not cease to be an ‘aggrieved person’ under the Act, nor is her right to residence extinguished.” The judgment also emphasized that displacing a woman from her matrimonial home after the husband’s death constitutes a serious form of domestic abuse, particularly in Indian society where most women are financially dependent.
The Court made a significant declaration, “The DV Act is not merely a civil code, it is a constitutional shield ensuring that no woman, even after the demise of her spouse, is left homeless by patriarchal retaliation cloaked in legal arguments.” It further stated, “The very premise of domestic violence includes psychological trauma and economic destabilization. The attempt to evict the petitioner and deny her entry into the household she once shared with her husband clearly falls within this ambit.”
The Court held that the shared household remains the woman’s legal sanctuary, and denying her residence there amounts to undermining her constitutional guarantees of dignity, security, and equality.
The decision of the Court:
The High Court upheld the decision of the Sessions Court and dismissed the revision petition, ruling that the woman had established her right to seek protection under the Domestic Violence Act. The Court concluded that the Magistrate’s initial dismissal was legally unsustainable and that the appellate court had rightly restored her entitlement to peaceful residence in her matrimonial home.
“The revision petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed,” the Court concluded, sealing a strong message on the inviolability of a woman’s right to shelter within her matrimonial home.
Picture Source :
