In a landmark judgment, the Kerala High Court ruled that a divorced woman cannot claim the right to reside in a shared household based on an earlier domestic relationship with her ex-husband. However, the court emphasized that such a woman cannot be evicted without following due legal procedures. This ruling came in the case Crl. Rev. Pet 463 of 2024, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen.
Background of the Case
The case centers around a 45-year-old woman from Palakkad, who filed a petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition challenged the judgments of the Sessions Court, Palakkad, and the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Palakkad. The woman and her minor daughter had been residing in the house of her ex-husband, whom she divorced after a marriage that began on August 27, 2009.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Right to Residence Post-Divorce: The core legal question was whether a divorced woman could claim the right to reside in a shared household under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, based on a past domestic relationship.
2. Eviction without Due Process: The secondary issue was whether the Magistrate could direct the eviction of a petitioner seeking a prohibitory order against such eviction.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice A. Badharudeen, while delivering the judgment, referred extensively to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi. The court noted that the Domestic Violence Act provides every woman in a domestic relationship the right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of her legal right, title, or interest in the property. This right is not dependent on the subsistence of the domestic relationship at the time of filing the application under the Act.
However, Justice Badharudeen clarified that this right does not extend to divorced women seeking residence based solely on an earlier relationship. “A divorced woman cannot claim the right of residence in a shared household on the basis of an earlier domestic relationship with the husband. But divorced women staying in a shared household at the time of divorce or after divorce shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law,” the judgment stated.
Detailed Findings
1. Eviction Orders and Legal Process: The court found that the order from the Magistrate directing the petitioner to vacate the house within one month was not legally sustainable. The rationale was that no legal procedure had been adopted by the respondent to get eviction of the petitioner. The court emphasized that even a trespasser could not be evicted forcefully and that legal procedures must be followed.
2. Pending Decisions and Interim Reliefs: The court allowed the petitioner and her minor child to continue residing in the shared household pending the final decision in M.C.No.59/2023 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Palakkad. The court made it clear that the respondent was at liberty to seek legal eviction of the petitioner as per the law, and the mere pendency of M.C.No.59/2023 would not bar such actions.
Also Read
Lawyers Involved:
The petitioner was represented by Advocates Rajesh Sivaraman Kutty and Arul Muralidharan. The respondent was represented by Advocates Varghese C. Kuriakose and Amritha J., with the State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor Sri M.P. Prasanth.
The case number for this judgment is Crl. Rev. Pet 463 of 2024.
