Harmonious Cohabitation’ in Domestic Violence Cases: High Court of Kerala Dismisses Relocation Petition, Stresses

Justice Ajithkumar affirms importance of shared household stability in rejecting plea for alternative accommodation under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, presided over by Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, has dismissed a revision petition seeking the relocation of respondents to alternative accommodation in a case concerning residence orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The judgment emphasizes the significance of cohabitation in a shared household and underscores the importance of harmonious living arrangements unless compelling reasons dictate otherwise.

The case originated from a domestic dispute involving the petitioners, Binoy and Vanajakshy, and the respondents, Reeja and her minor daughter Meera. Reeja, along with Meera, had filed a petition seeking various reliefs, including the return of gold ornaments, maintenance, a protection order, and a residence order. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Haripad, granted all the reliefs sought. Subsequently, the petitioners complied with the return of gold ornaments and the payment of maintenance. However, a specific contention arose regarding the residence order, wherein Reeja and Meera sought an alternative accommodation due to cohabitation issues with Vanajakshy, the aged mother-in-law.

Justice Ajithkumar underscored the discretionary power provided under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which allows courts to direct the provision of alternative accommodation. However, the court found no sufficient reason to disturb the current living arrangements. “It is the duty and obligation of both sides, unless there are sufficient and tangible reasons making such coexistence impossible, to live together,” noted Justice Ajithkumar. The court emphasized that harmonious living is crucial, and unless proven otherwise, cohabitation should be maintained.

The petitioners argued that the peaceful residence of Vanajakshy was impossible due to the presence of Reeja and Meera in the shared household. They proposed providing an alternative accommodation of Reeja and Meera’s choice. However, the court found this argument unconvincing, noting the absence of compelling evidence to warrant the relocation.

Reeja’s counsel argued that she and her daughter had been residing peacefully in the shared household and that relocation would be detrimental to their interests. The counsel highlighted that Meera, being a student nearing the age of 18, required stability for her studies and security. Additionally, the counsel pointed out that Binoy had another residence where Vanajakshy could be accommodated, suggesting that the plea for relocation was more vexatious than genuine.

The court reiterated that residence orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are discretionary and should be applied judiciously. “In the absence of any sufficient and tangible reasons making such coexistence impossible, it is totally undesirable to ask respondent Nos.1 and 2 to shift residence from their accustomed environment,” the court stated. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining the status quo in shared household arrangements unless significant evidence justifies a change.

Justice Ajithkumar remarked, “It is equally important to reside mother-in-law along with daughter-in-law and granddaughter cordially and peacefully.” He further stated, “The view taken by the appellate court in this regard cannot be found fault with.”

The High Court’s dismissal of the revision petition underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring harmonious cohabitation in shared households. By affirming the appellate court’s decision, the judgment sends a strong message about the necessity of substantial reasons to alter living conditions under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. This decision is expected to influence future cases, reinforcing the importance of preserving stability in domestic arrangements.

Date of Decision: June 26, 2024