Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has held that relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), specifically residence orders under Section 19, cannot be extended to a woman after the dissolution of her marriage. Justice K. Babu delivered the judgment, clarifying the legal position regarding the applicability of the DV Act post-divorce.

The Case Background

The judgment arose from criminal revision petitions filed by both the husband and wife against orders passed by lower courts concerning allegations of domestic violence. The wife had filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act, seeking protection, residence, and monetary reliefs. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala, granted the wife a residence order along with other reliefs. This order was partly modified by the Sessions Court, Kottayam. The respondents, including the husband, challenged the residence order in the High Court, contending that the marital relationship had already been dissolved by a decree of divorce on April 8, 2014, which rendered the wife ineligible for relief under Section 19 of the DV Act.

Domestic Relationship and Relief Under Section 19

Justice K. Babu emphasized that a "domestic relationship," as defined under the DV Act, is a prerequisite for granting relief under Section 19. The court observed:

 

"In the present case, admittedly as per judgment dated 08.04.2014 in Mat. Appeal No.360/2009 a Division Bench of this Court dissolved the marital tie between the parties. There are no special circumstances that prevent this Court from taking cognizance of the divorce effected in determining the rights of the parties. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the residence order under Section 19 of the DV Act after 08.04.2014."

The court further clarified that while a divorced woman may qualify as an "aggrieved person" under the DV Act, her residence rights under Section 19 are confined to the shared household where she resided during the subsistence of the marriage. Citing the judgment in Ramachandra Warrior v. Jayasree (2021), the court noted: "A divorced wife would not be entitled to the right of residence conferred under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for reason of that right being available only to a woman in a domestic relationship."

Prima Facie Evidence and Residence Orders

The court also examined the standard of proof required under different provisions of the DV Act. It observed:

"While considering the question of whether an applicant is entitled to protection order under Section 18 or an ex parte interim order under Section 23, a prima facie satisfaction that the opposite party committed domestic violence is the requirement. Whereas, while passing a residence order under Section 19 of the DV Act, the Magistrate has to go beyond prima facie satisfaction and has to satisfy that domestic violence has taken place." Justice Babu highlighted that the lower courts acted on prima facie evidence in granting the residence order but failed to consider the implications of the divorce decree.

Key Observations

1. Divorced Woman as Aggrieved Person: While a divorced woman can approach the court under the DV Act, her rights to residence are limited to situations where she resides in the shared household at the time of filing the complaint.

2. Subsequent Events and Relief: The court  observed that procedural jurisprudence allows consideration of subsequent events, such as divorce, to determine a party's entitlement to relief.

3. Revisional Jurisdiction: The court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction does not permit interference with lower court orders unless they are perverse or legally untenable.

The Kerala High Court ruled that the petitioner’s residence rights under Section 19 ceased with the dissolution of her marriage on April 8, 2014.

Cause Title: D. Sudheer v Anusha R. Nair

Case No: CRL.REV.PET NO. 1173 OF 2013

Date: January-13-2025

Bench: Justice K. Babu

[Read/Download order]