Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

Kerala High Court Reaffirms Divorced Woman’s Right to Reside in Shared Household

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Justice Badharudeen sets aside lower courts’ eviction orders, emphasizes due process under the Domestic Violence Act.

In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court upheld the right of a divorced woman and her minor child to reside in a shared household, overturning the eviction orders from the lower courts. Justice A. Badharudeen underscored the expansive interpretation of the right to reside under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), and criticized the lower courts for bypassing due legal procedure.

The petitioner, Jayasree, filed a Criminal Revision Petition against the concurrent findings of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Palakkad, and the Sessions Court, Palakkad, which directed her to vacate the shared household. Jayasree sought interim relief under the DV Act to prohibit her ex-husband, Indrapalan, from committing domestic violence and to prevent her eviction. The Magistrate granted the prohibitory order but directed her eviction within a month. This decision was upheld by the Sessions Court, prompting Jayasree to approach the High Court.

Justice Badharudeen emphasized the expansive interpretation of the right to reside under Section 17 of the DV Act. “A divorced woman residing in the shared household at the time of divorce or after cannot be evicted without due legal procedure,” he noted, reinforcing the protective measures intended by the DV Act.

The judgment referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, which clarified that a woman’s right to reside in a shared household does not require a subsisting domestic relationship at the time of filing the application. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in ordering eviction without following due process. “Even a trespasser cannot be evicted forcefully and must be removed following established legal procedures,” the court stated.

Justice Badharudeen remarked, “The right of residence under Section 17 of the DV Act must be given an expansive interpretation. A divorced woman cannot be evicted from the shared household except in accordance with the procedure established by law.”

The High Court’s decision highlights the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of women under the DV Act. By setting aside the eviction orders, the judgment reinforces the legal safeguards against arbitrary eviction, ensuring that due process is followed. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for similar cases, bolstering the legal framework that supports women’s rights to a secure residence.

 

Date of Decision: 25th June 2024

Jayasree vs. Indrapalan and State of Kerala

Similar News