Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Jayasree, D/o Late R Mani – Appellant
Versus
Indrapalan, S/o Late Vasudevan A.C. – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet No. 463 of 2024
Decided on : 25-06-2024
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - INTERIM ORDER - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - Section 17 - Section 2(f) - The court discussed the interpretation of the right to reside in a shared household under the D.V Act, emphasizing that a divorced woman cannot claim the right of residence in a shared household based on an earlier domestic relationship with the husband. The court also held that a divorced woman staying in a shared household at the time of divorce or after divorce shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an interim order passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, where the petitioner sought relief to prohibit the respondent from committing domestic violence and evicting them from the shared household. The respondent opposed the interim reliefs, claiming that the petitioner deserted the respondent and continued her cruel attitude towards the respondent. The trial court allowed the first relief and directed the petitioner to vacate the house of the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a divorced woman cannot claim the right of residence in a shared household based on an earlier domestic relationship with the husband. It also ruled that the second relief granted by the trial court, directing the petitioner to vacate the house, was not legally sustainable.
Issues: The issues before the court were whether a divorced woman can seek residence in a shared household based on an earlier domestic relationship with the husband and whether a Magistrate is competent to direct the petitioner to vacate the building in a case where the petitioner sought a prohibitory order against eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a divorced woman cannot claim the right of residence in a shared household based on an earlier domestic relationship with the husband. It also ruled that the second relief granted by the trial court, directing the petitioner to vacate the house, was not legally sustainable.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, permitting the petitioner to continue her residence in the house until she will be evicted by the process of law. The respondent was given the liberty to evict the petitioner from the shared household as per law, and the mere pendency of the case shall not be a bar for doing the same.
ORDER :
This Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The challenge in this revision petition is judgment in Crl.Appeal No.18/2024 on the files of the Sessions Court, Palakkad, arising out of order in Crl.M.P.No.4006/2023 in M.C.No.59/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakkad.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent in detail. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent, State of Kerala also was heard. Perused the order and judgment under challenge as well as the relevant records which led to the impugned verdicts.
3. I shall refer the parties in this Revision Petition as to their status before the trial court.
4. The case revolves around an interim order passed by the Magistrate in an application filed by the petitioner under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (`D.V Act’ for short) in M.C.No.59/2023, pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Palakkad.
5. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.4006/2023 along with M.C.No.59/2023 under Section 12 of the D.V Act seeking interim reliefs: “(i) prohibiting the respondent from committing domestic violence; and (ii) prohibiting the respondent from evicting the house by the petitioner and minor child”. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner and the respondent got married on 27.08.2009 as per customary rites at Sidhapudur Sri Ayyappan temple, Coimbatore, and they resided at the respondent’s house. A female child born to them on 20.01.2011. The respondent never considered the petitioner and the minor child and never gave any amount for their livelihood. The petitioner filed O.P.No.1035/2022 for maintenance and the respondent filed O.P.No.70/2017 before the Family Court seeking divorce. According to the petitioner, the petitioner maintained domestic relationship and the petitioner and the minor child apprehend commission of domestic violence again by the respondent by evicting them from the shared household. Thus the interim reliefs sought for. Opposing the interim reliefs, a detailed objection was filed by the respondent and resisted grant of interim reliefs sought for.
6. The specific contention raised by the respondent before the trial court is that the petitioner deserted the respondent and continued her cruel attitude towards the respondent from 03.06.2010 onwards and she denied conjugal obligation also. O.P.No.70/2017 filed by the respondent before the Family Court on the ground of desertion was allowed on 31.12.2022 and the appeal challenging the order in O.P.No.70/2017 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in Mat.Appeal No.263/2023 dated 03.10.2023. It was during the pendency of the Mat.Appeal, on 11.07.2023, M.C.No.59/2023 was filed with ulterior motives, though there was no shared household at any point of time. The learned Magistrate as per order dated 04.01.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.4006/2023 allowed the first relief and also passed an order that “the petitioner shall vacate the house of the respondent within one month of this order”.
7. Impugning the said interim order, Crl.Appeal No.18/2024 was filed before the Sessions Court. But the learned Sessions Judge also concurred the finding of the trial court.
8. While assailing the concurrent verdicts of the trial court as well as the appellate court, the learned counsel for the respondent/revision petitioner herein argued that the verdicts of the trial court as well as the appellate court are illegal and the same were passed as against the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court reported in [2022 AIR (SC) 2331 : 2022 KHC 6542 : 2022 KLT SN 37], Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi. The point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the ratio in Prabha Tyagi’s case (supra), Section 17 of the D.V Act is referred, which provides that every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside i
A divorced woman cannot claim the right of residence in a shared household based on an earlier domestic relationship with the husband.
The right to reside in a shared household is not restricted to actual residence and can be enforced by any woman in a domestic relationship, irrespective of whether she has any right, title, or benef....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a divorced woman is entitled to the right of residence under S.17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 only if she is i....
A divorced wife cannot claim residence order or enforce an earlier residence order under the Domestic Violence Act after leaving the shared household and subsequent divorce.
The right to reside in a shared household under the D.V. Act does not require actual residence at the time of filing, but pending related proceedings can affect the propriety of subsequent applicatio....
Strict proof of marriage is not required to establish a domestic relationship under the Domestic Violence Act, allowing for claims based on cohabitation and the relationship's nature.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the definition of domestic relationship and shared household under the DV Act should be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the statu....
Domestic violence- Trial Court shall before passing a decree and dispossession on the wife ensuring in view of the subsisting rights of the daughter-in-law under the DV Act to provide with an additi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
