Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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

Latest Legal News