Women who are sometimes compelled out of their in-laws’ house due to domestic disputes can now claim the right of residence in the “shared household” even if the house is owned by their in-laws.
In a judgment that would bring respite to many victims of domestic violence, a 3-judge bench composition of the Supreme Court on Thursday held that “shared household”, under the protection of women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, can also be a house owned by the joint family or any relative of the husband, provided that the woman has lived in that house after her marriage as a long-term resident “in a domestic relationship.”
“In the event, the shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are satisfied and the said house will become a shared household,” held the bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah.
Shot in the arm for women’s rights
This judgment would come as a big relief to women who are compelled or thrown out of the matrimonial home and denied relief on grounds that the house is the sole property of their father-in-law or mother-in-law.
The bench, in its 150-page verdict, observed that “domestic violence in this country is rampant and several women encounter violence in some form or the other almost every day, however, it is the least reported form of cruel behaviour.”
The bench also observed that the Domestic Violence Act 2005 was a “step to secure social justice by legislation.”
Today’s Supreme Court ruling overhauls an earlier 2007 judgment of a two-judge bench of the apex court, which had held that “shared household” is limited to a house that is owned or rented by her husband, or by the joint family of which the husband is a member.
How to determine “shared residence”
The Apex court has clarified that whether or not the residence is in fact a “shared residence” would be determined by the family court where the said domestic violence case is being heard.
The court further added that “the right to residence under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in the shared household especially when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law.”
“The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law. While granting relief both in the application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 or in any civil proceedings, the relevant court has to balance the rights of both the parties” the top court has added.
Reprieve for the daughter-in-law would also depend on whether the allegation of domestic violence can be proved in the trial.
‘Evidence has to be led that domestic violence took place’
“It is to be observed that in a case any relief available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 is sought by the aggrieved person in any legal proceedings before a civil court, family court or a criminal court including the residence order, the aggrieved person has to satisfy by leading evidence that domestic violence has taken place and only on the basis of the evidence led on being satisfied that the domestic violence has taken place, the relief available under Section 19 can be granted…” the Apex court further ruled.
WhatsApp us
Pingback: connetix