Landmark Judgment: Kerala High Court Rules on Divorced Woman's Right to Reside in Shared Household
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has determined that a divorced woman cannot claim the right to reside in a shared household based on a previous domestic relationship with her ex-husband. However, the court stressed that she cannot be evicted without following due legal procedures. This pivotal judgment was delivered in the case of Orl. Rev. Pet 463 of 2024 by Justice A. Badharudeen.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around a 45-year-old woman from Palakkal, who challenged the decisions of the Sessions Court and the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, both in Palakkad. The woman and her minor daughter had been living in the house of her ex-husband, following their divorce after a marriage that began on August 27, 2009. She filed a petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to overturn the lower courts' judgments.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Right to Residence Post-Divorce: The primary issue was whether a divorced woman could claim the right to live in a shared household under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, based on a past domestic relationship.
2. Eviction without Due Process: The secondary issue concerned whether the Magistrate could order the eviction of a petitioner seeking protection from eviction.
Court's Observations and Decision
In delivering the judgment, Justice Badharudeen extensively cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi. He noted that the Domestic Violence Act grants every woman in a domestic relationship the right to reside in the shared household, regardless of her legal right, title, or interest in the property. This right does not depend on the continuation of the domestic relationship at the time of filing the application under the Act.
However, Justice Badharudeen clarified that this right does not extend to divorced women seeking residence solely based on a past relationship. "A divorced woman cannot claim the right of residence in a shared household on the basis of an earlier domestic relationship with the husband. But divorced women 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," the judgment stated.
Detailed Findings
1. Eviction Orders and Legal Process: The court ruled that the Magistrate's order directing the petitioner to vacate the house within a month was not legally sustainable, as no proper legal procedure had been followed by the respondent to evict the petitioner. The court emphasized that even a trespasser cannot be evicted forcefully and that legal procedures must be adhered to.
2. Pending Decisions and Interim Reliefs: The court allowed the petitioner and her minor child to continue residing in the shared household pending the final decision in M.C.No.59/2023 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Palakkad. The court also clarified that the respondent is free to seek legal eviction of the petitioner according to the law, and the ongoing case M.C.No.59/2023 would not prevent such actions.
This landmark judgment underscores the importance of following legal procedures in eviction cases and highlights the nuanced application of the Domestic Violence Act concerning divorced women.
To get free legal advice:https://www.advotalks.com/
For More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
