Kerala HC: Right To Shelter Is Fundamental | Widow Cannot Be Evicted From Matrimonial Home By In-Laws | Domestic Violence Act Upholds Her Dignity And Residence Rights
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice M.B. Snehalatha, upheld the judgment of the Sessions Court, Palakkad, upholding the right of a woman and her children to reside in their shared household and restraining the respondents from committing any acts of domestic violence or causing obstruction to such residence. The Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the respondents, concluding that there was no merit in their challenge and no justification to interfere with the lower appellate court's order.
The matter originated from a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by a woman seeking a protection and residence order. The petitioner alleged that her in-laws, who were the respondents in the case, attempted to evict her and her children from their shared household following the death of her husband. She claimed that they caused obstruction to her right of residence and created disturbances preventing peaceful occupancy.
The respondents, who included her brother-in-law, sister-in-law, and mother-in-law, denied the allegations and contended that there was no act of domestic violence. They asserted that the petitioner had not lived in the matrimonial home after her husband’s death and instead resided at her parental house, thereby not satisfying the legal criteria of an “aggrieved person” in a “domestic relationship” as required under the Domestic Violence Act.
The Judicial Magistrate of First Class III, Palakkad, who initially heard the matter in M.C. No. 39 of 2012, dismissed the petition. The Magistrate found that the petitioner had failed to establish that she had a domestic relationship with the respondents and was therefore not entitled to the reliefs sought.
Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Palakkad, in Crl.A No. 183 of 2015. The appellate court reversed the findings of the Magistrate. It held that the petitioner was indeed an aggrieved person in a domestic relationship and had faced acts of domestic violence. The Sessions Court directed that the respondents be restrained from committing further acts of domestic violence or interfering with the petitioner’s right to reside in the shared household.
Challenging the appellate decision, the respondents filed Crl.R.P. No. 286 of 2018 before the High Court. They argued that the petitioner had an alternate residence of her own obtained through a settlement deed and had not resided in the matrimonial home following her husband's death. On these grounds, they claimed she was not entitled to seek relief under the Act.
The Court examined the legal definitions of “aggrieved person,” “domestic relationship,” and “shared household” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
It noted that the Act defines an “aggrieved person” as any woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and alleges to have been subjected to domestic violence.
The term “domestic relationship” includes those who live or have lived together in a shared household, and the definition of “shared household” encompasses property where the aggrieved person has resided, regardless of legal ownership.
The Court recorded: “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.”
It noted that the petitioner had lived in the shared household after marriage and had been subjected to efforts by the respondents to evict her and obstruct her residence.
Referring to Section 3 of the Act, the Court stated: “Any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence… includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse.”
The Court stated the legislative intent of the Domestic Violence Act, observing: “The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family.”
It underlined the principle of residence rights under Section 17 of the Act: “Every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.”
In support of its conclusion, the Court cited the Supreme Court decision in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (AIR 2022 SC 2331), stating: “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.”
Rejecting the argument that the petitioner’s ownership of another property disqualified her from claiming protection, the Court held: “The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/respondents in M.C that since the petitioner in M.C owns another property... she has no right to reside in the shared household, is untenable.”
It concluded that the evidence on record supported the petitioner’s claim that the respondents had committed acts of domestic violence and attempted to oust her from the household.
The Court stated the finding of the Sessions Court, stating: “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.”
The Court concluded that there was no justification to interfere with the judgment rendered in Crl.A No.183/2015 by the Sessions Court, Palakkad, and declared that the criminal revision petition lacked merit.
Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed. The Court did not issue any further directions.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: K.I. Mayankutty Mather, Advocate; P.P. Ramachandran, Advocate
For the Respondents: Abe Rajan, Advocate; Liju M.P., Advocate; Sajan Vargheese K., Advocate
For the State: T.V. Neema, Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Chenthamara @ Kannan & Others v. Meena & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:36088
Case Number: Crl.R.P. No. 286 of 2018
Bench: Justice M.B. Snehalatha
[Read/Download order]
