In a significant ruling reaffirming a woman’s right to residence, the Kerala High Court recently held that a wife cannot be ousted from her matrimonial home even after the death of her husband.
A single bench of Justice MB Snehalatha ruled that a woman’s right to reside in her matrimonial home under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), continues even after the death of her husband, irrespective of ownership or title.
“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 recognises 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. While recognising the right to residence in the shared household, the Act affirms a woman’s right to shelter and security, reinforcing her position in society and well-being of the family. This provision is crucial for the empowerment and protection of women and reflects this law’s commitment to gender justice and human dignity,” the court said.
The court gave the ruling while dismissing a revision petition filed by a woman’s in-laws from Palakkad who sought to quash a sessions court’s order.
The court observed that as per the evidence on record the woman’s in-laws committed “acts of domestic violence” against her and they had made an “attempt to evict” the petitioner and her children from the “shared household”.
The court rejected the in-law’s contention that after the death of the husband, the wife is residing at her parental house and therefore she is not an aggrieved person under Domestic Violence Act.
The case arose after a widow filed a petition before the magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), alleging that her in-laws, respondents in the case, were attempting to forcibly evict her and her children from the shared household. She alleged they obstructed her from entering and peacefully residing in the house she once shared with her late husband.
The respondents argued that there was no domestic violence as claimed and contended that the petitioner had been living in her parental home since her husband’s death and had no continuing “domestic relationship” with them. According to them, she was not an “aggrieved person” under the DV Act and therefore not entitled to any relief..
The trial court dismissed her plea, holding that she no longer had a domestic relationship with her in-laws within the meaning of the Act. However, the Sessions Court reversed that decision. The Sessions Court found that the respondents had indeed committed acts of domestic violence by trying to dispossess her of the shared household and ordered them not to cause any obstruction to her right to live there with her children. The in-laws approached the High Court challenging this
The high court emphasized the importance of Section 17 of the DV Act. This provision guarantees every woman in a domestic relationship the right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of her legal ownership or title to the property. The high court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (2022), where the apex court had said, “it is not mandatory for the aggrieved person to have actually lived or resided with those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled at the time of seeking relief. If a woman has the right to reside in a shared household, she can accordingly enforce her right Under Section 17(1) of the D.V. Act”. The court thus upheld the trial court’s order.