Every woman has a right to reside in a shared household – Apex Court
D.D:-12th May, 2022
Apex Court held in latest judgement (Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi 12th May 2022 ) that In India, it is a societal norm for a woman to reside with her husband, unless due to professional, occupational or job commitments, or for other genuine reasons. Even in a case where the woman in a domestic relationship is residing elsewhere on account of a reasonable cause, she has the right to reside in a shared household.
Facts – Appellant marriage was solemnized on 18th June, 2005 with Vishnu Tyagi at Haridwar District, Uttarakhand, the family members of the aggrieved person had given dowry to the family of her deceased husband and Stridhana to the aggrieved person. Husband of the aggrieved person died on 15th July 2005 in a car accident and after the Terhanvi ceremony of her husband, the aggrieved person was constrained to reside initially at Delhi, at her father’s house. That immediately prior to the death of her husband, the aggrieved person had conceived a child.
That on 30th March 2006 the aggrieved person gave birth to a daughter and owing to the misbehavior and torture meted out to her by her matrimonial family after her husband’s death, she moved to Dehradun, Uttarakhand with her daughter, where she began working as a teacher to support herself and her child. That the Stridhana given to her at the time of her wedding was never allowed to be enjoyed by her and even following her exit from her matrimonial home, the Stridhana was being used by her in-laws, respondent nos. 1 to 6. That the aggrieved person had sent a legal notice dated 22nd November 2006, requesting them to return the articles of Stridhana, however, there was no response to the same.
That the father of the aggrieved person gifted a Maruti (Alto) car, at the time of wedding and the same was registered in the name of her deceased husband. Owing to the accident that her husband had met with, resulting in his death, the said car had also been damaged.
That the aggrieved person’s mother-in-law had applied before the insurance company, National Insurance Company which was processing the claim for damage caused to the car, stating therein that she was the mother of the deceased and was the only legal heir of the deceased and therefore any compensation may be made in her favor.
Deceased husband also having right and title in a piece of land, but respondents objected to the recording of the aggrieved persons’ name in the revenue records of the said property by stating that the child was not of Kuldeep Tyagi’s daughter. Owing to such objection, the Court of Tehsildar passed an order of status quo with respect to the said property.
Aggrieved person moved application under D.V. Act and sought and sought protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, and compensation orders to be passed. All above alleged allegations denied by the respondents. The court allowed the application and directed the respondents to pay Rs.10,000 as monetary compensation for insulting and maligning her. The articles of Stridhan mentioned in the list enclosed with the application, except the Maruti (Alto) Car, were to be made available at her residence and directed that the respondents shall not obstruct the aggrieved person and her daughter from enjoying the property of late Kuldeep Tyagi.
Aggrieved respondents approached Session court where judgement set aside. Aggrieved person filed revision to High Court. But same was dismissed on the ground that there was no domestic incident report which is mandatory, aggrieved person did not have any shared house hold. Aggrieved Appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Apex Court Observed that a domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time, lived together in a shared household. The expression ‘domestic relationship’ is a comprehensive one. Every woman in a domestic relationship has a right to reside in a shared household, whether she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same or not.
Apex court held that If a woman in a domestic relationship seeks to enforce her right to reside in a shared household, irrespective of whether she has resided therein at all or not, then the said right can be enforced under Sub-Section (1) of Section 17 of the D.V. Act. A woman cannot be excluded from the shared household even if she has not actually resided therein.
Apex Court also held that the D.V. Act is a Civil Code that applies to every woman in India, regardless of her religion or socioeconomic status, to safeguard her Constitutional rights and domestic abuse victims.
Apex Court replied that it is not mandatory for the aggrieved person to have actually lived or resided with those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled at the time of seeking relief.
In replying to the question whether, such a domestic relationship should be subsisting between the aggrieved person and the respondent against whom relief is claimed at the time of claiming the relief, Apex Court answered that It is held that it is not mandatory for the aggrieved person, when she is related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family, to actually reside with those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled at the time of commission of domestic violence.
If a woman has the right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the D.V. Act and such a woman becomes an aggrieved person or victim of domestic violence, she can seek reliefs under the provisions of D.V. Act including enforcement of her right to live in a shared household.
In replying to the question whether the consideration of domestic incident report is mandatory before initiating the proceedings under the D.V. Act, Apex Court held that Section 12 does not make it mandatory for a Magistrate to consider a Domestic Incident Report filed by a Protection Officer or service provider before passing any order under the D.V. Act.
It is clarified that even in the absence of a Domestic Incident Report, a Magistrate is empowered to pass both ex parte or interim as well as a final order under the provisions of the D.V. Act.
Appeal Allowed.
PRABHA TYAGI
V/S
KAMLESH DEVI
