Shared Household Cannot Become a War Zone: Kerala High Court Upholds Magistrate’s Order Granting Alternate Accommodation to Wife Under Domestic Violence Act

“Joint residence is not feasible when continued cohabitation results in emotional or physical injury... the best interim solution is separation with dignity, not forced proximity” — In a significant judgment concerning interim relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Kerala High Court refused to interfere with a Magistrate’s order directing the husband to provide alternate rented accommodation to his wife.

Justice G. Girish firmly ruled that when joint occupation of the shared household results in persistent conflict, courts are empowered to protect the victim of domestic violence through temporary arrangements that uphold both dignity and safety.

The Court was hearing cross-revision petitions arising from a complex series of litigations between spouses Jo Augustine and Ambili, involving complaints of domestic violence, illicit relationships, lockouts, contempt, and multiple FIRs over the right to residence in their marital home.

“Equilibrium, Not Coercion, Is the Goal of Interim Orders”: High Court Clarifies Purpose of Residence Orders Under DV Act

The origin of the dispute lies in an interim residence order dated 16.10.2023 issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad, directing the husband to give vacant possession of the shared household to his wife under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act. This was followed by rounds of litigation, contempt proceedings, and an eventual direction by the High Court in O.P. (Crl) No. 876/2023, allowing both parties to cohabit in the same household without obstructing each other.

However, this attempted “peaceful coexistence” failed miserably.

Justice Girish recorded: “The continued violence leading to further issues between the parties has proved that the above venture to accommodate both the parties under the same roof was not feasible.”

Acknowledging this breakdown, the Magistrate had allowed the husband's application under C.M.P No. 561/2024, permitting him to offer a rented house with equivalent amenities to the wife instead of vacating the shared household himself. The wife’s counter-application to evict the husband entirely (C.M.P No. 1168/2024) was dismissed. This arrangement was upheld by the Sessions Court, Palakkad, and now confirmed by the High Court.

“When Shared Living Breeds Harassment, Separation is Protection”: Court Emphasises Balance in Interim Remedies

Rejecting both spouses’ revision petitions — the wife claiming threat to her safety if the husband stays, and the husband alleging her relationship with another man — the Court focused on the practical enforceability and legal soundness of the interim solution.

“The direction of the Trial Court to the husband to provide alternate accommodation to the wife is the most suitable and efficacious legal remedy which could be resorted to preserve the peaceful state of affairs till the matter is finally decided.”

The Court underlined that interim orders under Section 19 are meant to maintain equilibrium, not to adjudicate on permanent rights or moral accusations.

“Proof of Adultery, Ownership, or Illicit Behaviour Is Not Relevant at Interim Stage”: High Court Declines to Examine Volleys of Allegations

Both parties flooded the Court with documents — property records, photographs, WhatsApp screenshots, police complaints, even morphed images and psychiatric prescriptions. However, the High Court rightly refused to entertain these at this stage, observing:

“At the present stage of the proceedings, this Court cannot embark upon an enquiry on the matters covered by the aforesaid documents... The parties concerned have to place all those records before the Trial Court.”

The ruling establishes a clear procedural boundary between interim protection under Section 23 of the DV Act and final adjudication of rights under Section 20 or 26, affirming that protective orders should not devolve into forums for character assassination.

“Safety and Shelter Must Be Balanced with Procedural Restraint”: High Court Refuses to Disturb Magistrate and Sessions Court Orders

In conclusion, the High Court found no illegality or impropriety in the lower courts’ decision to:

• Permit the husband to retain residence in the shared household

• Require him to provide alternate accommodation to the wife

• Reject both parties’ attempts to evict the other or escalate personal accusations

The Court stressed: “There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the verdicts rendered by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge.”

The petitions were accordingly dismissed, and all pending applications stood closed.

Date of Judgment: 8th September 2025